Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[/b]Liberals never practice what they preach. [b]They rant about the importance of diversity, not being racist and ensuring equality for women. But consider the field of potential candidates for the Democratic nomination. The dominant candidates are two white guys well in their late 70s and a white guy from Indiana.

The women, the Hispanic, the Asian and the African-American are almost non-starters.

Terms like never and always tend to squash rather than advance civil discourse. I wish you wouldn’t lead this way, esp as in this case, you are making a good point that for all the talk of diversity, the leading Presidential candidates on the D side are old white guys.

But you must allow that the emerging cadre of Dem leadership includes a range of races, creeds and colors, esp compared to the R side. Considering the projected demographic changes in the next 30 years, why aren’t Republicans cultivating diversity in their leadership?

So the field for Dem nominee includes all colors and creeds? So what? They are all running on far-leftist policies that would destroy the economy! Leftists need to stop looking at "not white" as the way to pick nominees. It's stupid identity politics - and it's racist.

What I am asking is - why aren’t Republicans doing more to cultivate leaders of color within their own ranks? If for no other reason that in the next 25 years, whites will be the minority. Why not begin to develop leadership among women as well? I am not talking about identity politics- that’s a throwaway defense. I am asking why, in the face of the changes coming in the demographics of America, Republicans are only focusing on their historic white base and not exploring development of support across Hispanics, AAs, etc.

I am not sure that anyone needs to cultivate leaders of a certain color. An organization that does that for the black and yellow people can use the same mechanism to do it for white people. Race and color of the skin are superficial features and should receive no consideration what so ever. This is *NOT* to say that we shouldn't cultivate leaders from different backgrounds and cultures so that they can bring their perspective. How similar is Kamala Harris' background and cultural experience from those of the average African American in urban environments, in the deep south, and etc. Not very similar. So why are we looking at Kamala Harris as if the color of her skin should give her some additional consideration for leadership?

Well the GOP plays white identity politics to the hilt and the “poorly educated”, poor, older white men almost always vote for a white man. What has a poor white man in Appalachia got to do with the conman billionaire from NYC? Nada. Zilch. Yet they identified with the liar-in-chief because he was one of them even though he had no life experience any where close to them.

Stop trolling. Trump never claimed to share the same experience as poor whites in Appalachia because he is also white. People from different backgrounds *CAN* share the same common vision, which is to put the interest of America first. It's different to share a common goal than to identify with someone based on the color of their skin.

I call BS on that. The liar, pussy grabber panders to the white supremacists all the time. He didn’t put America first by any means, that’s just his successful con job. He made enough of his cult members believe in his con. He gave tax cuts for the rich and tried very hard to take away Obamacare which helped them. He cut education budgets which helps the poor and middle class. There is no wall. Dreamers are still here. Obamacare is still here. China trade Deficits are at the highest ever, debt to gdp ratio is 100% , agriculture is suffering due to tariffs, no immigration fix, no new coal/ steel jobs and in fact many coal plants have shut down..... on and on...

If he is America first he should pass a bill with mandatory e-verify, that’s it. But he will never ever do that because he can’t recruit illegals in his properties. He is a fraud and his cult has fallen for his con job.

If all you are going to do is engage in nonstop trite and juvenile name calling, you'll just be ignored.

+1.

Let's ignore he or she who can't make an actual argument.

PP was making so many good points about the GOP and Trump that simply can't be wished away. There is a lot of truth about the GOP which has become a party for the rich and no one can defend Trump on his personality, behavior or integrity. The president is the standard bearer for the country and we should be ashamed that he represents us all. But Trump is good at PR and marketing, which he is using to maximum effect even though he has NO POLICY WINS other than the unpopular tax cuts.

See, you both live in the same little bubble and parrot the same talking points.

Meanwhile, to a good number of posters in this thread, and as much as we don't like Trump as a person, we see a more prosperous, safe and peaceful country around us, especially compared to the sh!tty years 2014-2016.

2020 is not about who's our Preacher-in-Chief. It's about President and Commander-in-Chief. And Trump's results have exceeded the expectations by this non-Trump voter.

Someone earlier in this thread compared Trump to a surgeon she knew -- abrasive, no bed-side manners...and yet the most competent in town, so everyone went to him.

This is exactly how I feel.

-Another non-Trump voter who will be voting for him this time

I actually work in healthcare, and agree completely with the surgeon analogy.

You are now gonna vote for a Russian Puppet not just a conman, fraud, liar and Pussy Grabber, like before. Shame on fake patriots like yourself.

I find it funny that you continue to refer to Trump as a "pussy grabber" - even though that conversation took place FOURTEEN years ago. Do you really think that by repeating it over and over, you're somehow gaining traction or wooing undecided voters your way? You aren't. You're just making yourself look like a bratty kid throwing a tantrum.
-DP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He'll win for several reasons:
Most Americans outside of the DC stay at home mom demographic sees a big change and high consumer confidence levels.

Liberals have gone off the deep-end. They're insane. Everything is no racist, there are 37 different genders, trans-gay rallies in elementary school, mass importation of illegal immigrants, abolish ICE/CPB, Green New Deal, crazy twitter outrage mobs, antfa...most people want nothing to do with that crap. Even Europeans are laughing at us about this politically correct BS

Economy is good thanks to Trump

People don't believe what the media says anyways, they see the media as sycophants to the democrat party

no one who is sane supports partial birth abortion or late term abortion. The pro-abortion crowd does, most Americans do not.

Men are being tired of constantly being told they're sexist. They're not, they simply are confused. Women want equal rights and demand to be in high level CEO positions because they're "under represented." They're also under represented in fields such as Sewage Treatment, garbage men, plumbers, HVAC, carpentry, telecommunication techs who go out in the cold and fix your internet, cops, paramedics, lumberjacks, fishers, iron workers, power-line workers, roofers, truck drivers. Consequently, those are jobs with higher fatality rates more than any other job and not one I listed has higher than 25% female labor force. Only one remotely close is farmers, who only 24% are female. Most of what I listed is 90% male or above

People are tired of being told everything they do and say is racist. It's not. The only people who seem stuck on race is virtue signaling white liberals. Normal people aren't.

Those are just a few of the reasons.

I think anyone who feels like this voted for Trump last time. The open question is whether a competitor can command more voters - and whether every person who voted for him last time will do so again. He won by the slimmest of margins the last time. I don't think you can count on old, white, male culture war voters - as you've described in this post - being enough. But maybe you can. And incumbents certainly enjoy advantages, while incumbents with a good economy do even more so.

It's not just old white men though...white women voted for Trump as well.

And men in general are tired of being told they're sexist. Liberals don't believe in the presumption of innocence. Twitter is the modern day fire and pitchforks flaming and destroying people. Men are tired of being accused for things they didn't do and being destroyed because of it.

Agreed. I live in a suburb of DC and almost every white woman I know (including me) voted for Trump and probably will again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He'll win for several reasons:
Most Americans outside of the DC stay at home mom demographic sees a big change and high consumer confidence levels.

Liberals have gone off the deep-end. They're insane. Everything is no racist, there are 37 different genders, trans-gay rallies in elementary school, mass importation of illegal immigrants, abolish ICE/CPB, Green New Deal, crazy twitter outrage mobs, antfa...most people want nothing to do with that crap. Even Europeans are laughing at us about this politically correct BS

Economy is good thanks to Trump

People don't believe what the media says anyways, they see the media as sycophants to the democrat party

no one who is sane supports partial birth abortion or late term abortion. The pro-abortion crowd does, most Americans do not.

Men are being tired of constantly being told they're sexist. They're not, they simply are confused. Women want equal rights and demand to be in high level CEO positions because they're "under represented." They're also under represented in fields such as Sewage Treatment, garbage men, plumbers, HVAC, carpentry, telecommunication techs who go out in the cold and fix your internet, cops, paramedics, lumberjacks, fishers, iron workers, power-line workers, roofers, truck drivers. Consequently, those are jobs with higher fatality rates more than any other job and not one I listed has higher than 25% female labor force. Only one remotely close is farmers, who only 24% are female. Most of what I listed is 90% male or above

People are tired of being told everything they do and say is racist. It's not. The only people who seem stuck on race is virtue signaling white liberals. Normal people aren't.

Those are just a few of the reasons.

I think anyone who feels like this voted for Trump last time. The open question is whether a competitor can command more voters - and whether every person who voted for him last time will do so again. He won by the slimmest of margins the last time. I don't think you can count on old, white, male culture war voters - as you've described in this post - being enough. But maybe you can. And incumbents certainly enjoy advantages, while incumbents with a good economy do even more so.

It's not just old white men though...white women voted for Trump as well.

And men in general are tired of being told they're sexist. Liberals don't believe in the presumption of innocence. Twitter is the modern day fire and pitchforks flaming and destroying people. Men are tired of being accused for things they didn't do and being destroyed because of it.

The 2018 midterms suggests that women have had enough of voting for Republicans.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/11/07/2018-another-year-of-the-woman/

This platform you're suggesting here really is just aimed at men, and I think only really white men at that. (Nothing against white men - I'm married to one, and have one as my dad. But they aren't known to be the most enlightened voters.)

I'm not saying that this platform of bitterness and frustration couldn't drive a lot of GOTV in 2020 - but it seems like a pretty small platform. At least to me. And especially when you consider that Republicans have made so little effort to reach out to women, minorities, or young people - in fact, they seem to have gone out of their way to let those groups know how little they matter to Republicans, except as foils and enemies. It looks to me like Republicans really seem to be banking on the old white guys pushing them over the edge. Maybe they'll have called this right - I don't know! Hopefully not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mueller’s little non-speech about what was not found only furthers the exoneration of President Trump. End of story.

"If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," Mueller said.


The Liar,Conman, Russian puppet, Pussy grabber is a criminal who is trying to escape through our legal loopholes. He can't escape that easily. Its not over yet. his taxes are gonna be released one way or the other. Russia probe isn't over as Manafort and tone are still going through their respective cases. Manafort colluded with Russian spy Kilimnik and Stone worked with Wikileaks.

The obsessives continue to obsess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He'll win for several reasons:
Most Americans outside of the DC stay at home mom demographic sees a big change and high consumer confidence levels.

Liberals have gone off the deep-end. They're insane. Everything is no racist, there are 37 different genders, trans-gay rallies in elementary school, mass importation of illegal immigrants, abolish ICE/CPB, Green New Deal, crazy twitter outrage mobs, antfa...most people want nothing to do with that crap. Even Europeans are laughing at us about this politically correct BS

Economy is good thanks to Trump

People don't believe what the media says anyways, they see the media as sycophants to the democrat party

no one who is sane supports partial birth abortion or late term abortion. The pro-abortion crowd does, most Americans do not.

Men are being tired of constantly being told they're sexist. They're not, they simply are confused. Women want equal rights and demand to be in high level CEO positions because they're "under represented." They're also under represented in fields such as Sewage Treatment, garbage men, plumbers, HVAC, carpentry, telecommunication techs who go out in the cold and fix your internet, cops, paramedics, lumberjacks, fishers, iron workers, power-line workers, roofers, truck drivers. Consequently, those are jobs with higher fatality rates more than any other job and not one I listed has higher than 25% female labor force. Only one remotely close is farmers, who only 24% are female. Most of what I listed is 90% male or above

People are tired of being told everything they do and say is racist. It's not. The only people who seem stuck on race is virtue signaling white liberals. Normal people aren't.

Those are just a few of the reasons.

I think anyone who feels like this voted for Trump last time. The open question is whether a competitor can command more voters - and whether every person who voted for him last time will do so again. He won by the slimmest of margins the last time. I don't think you can count on old, white, male culture war voters - as you've described in this post - being enough. But maybe you can. And incumbents certainly enjoy advantages, while incumbents with a good economy do even more so.

It's not just old white men though...white women voted for Trump as well.

And men in general are tired of being told they're sexist. Liberals don't believe in the presumption of innocence. Twitter is the modern day fire and pitchforks flaming and destroying people. Men are tired of being accused for things they didn't do and being destroyed because of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[/b]Liberals never practice what they preach. [b]They rant about the importance of diversity, not being racist and ensuring equality for women. But consider the field of potential candidates for the Democratic nomination. The dominant candidates are two white guys well in their late 70s and a white guy from Indiana.

The women, the Hispanic, the Asian and the African-American are almost non-starters.

Terms like never and always tend to squash rather than advance civil discourse. I wish you wouldn’t lead this way, esp as in this case, you are making a good point that for all the talk of diversity, the leading Presidential candidates on the D side are old white guys.

But you must allow that the emerging cadre of Dem leadership includes a range of races, creeds and colors, esp compared to the R side. Considering the projected demographic changes in the next 30 years, why aren’t Republicans cultivating diversity in their leadership?

So the field for Dem nominee includes all colors and creeds? So what? They are all running on far-leftist policies that would destroy the economy! Leftists need to stop looking at "not white" as the way to pick nominees. It's stupid identity politics - and it's racist.

What I am asking is - why aren’t Republicans doing more to cultivate leaders of color within their own ranks? If for no other reason that in the next 25 years, whites will be the minority. Why not begin to develop leadership among women as well? I am not talking about identity politics- that’s a throwaway defense. I am asking why, in the face of the changes coming in the demographics of America, Republicans are only focusing on their historic white base and not exploring development of support across Hispanics, AAs, etc.

I am not sure that anyone needs to cultivate leaders of a certain color. An organization that does that for the black and yellow people can use the same mechanism to do it for white people. Race and color of the skin are superficial features and should receive no consideration what so ever. This is *NOT* to say that we shouldn't cultivate leaders from different backgrounds and cultures so that they can bring their perspective. How similar is Kamala Harris' background and cultural experience from those of the average African American in urban environments, in the deep south, and etc. Not very similar. So why are we looking at Kamala Harris as if the color of her skin should give her some additional consideration for leadership?

I understand your perspective. It’s important that leaders be people who lead and inspire. I think it’s very worthy to work towards a color and gender blind society. However – I also think it’s human nature that people want to see people who look like themselves in leader ship. And, if demographically our country is growing more ethnically diverse, and more women are taking positions of leadership, it just seems to me that Republicans would be smart to recognize that cultivating people other than white men to be leaders or even potential leaders would broaden the depth of the party’s leadership potential. I’m not saying pick people for leadership positions blindly based on these characteristics alone. But having a perspective that these characteristics along with their policy positions add a depth of perspective to the party platform would be a refreshing thing for me to see. But perhaps what you’re saying is, the party itself is open to that possibility, it just has to happen organically.

By and large, occupations, including elected leaders, will to a large extent reflect participation. Just as certain jobs are predominantly filled by men, and some jobs predominantly are filled by women, we must not ignore the political affiliation tendencies of the sexes. Women tend to be more liberal in their political affiliation, and men tend to be more conservative. We would naturally expect the democratic party to have more women, and the conservative party to have more men. This isn't some failure of the two parties, it simply reflects the differences in political alignment that naturally arises out of differences between men and women. This is not something to be fixed - it's not broken.

One significant barrier that I see preventing minorities and women from being more open about their conservatism is that they are often met with incredulity by other people that share their demographic traits. Women and minority leaders are viewed as traitors to their kind as if they have some moral character defect. How many black Republicans have been called Uncle Toms or house negros? I myself have been questioned by other Asians how I could possibly be a Republican when it's well established that Republicans are a bunch of racists. How can I be a member of a party that is racist against Asians? When asked for evidence, my fellow Asians point out that Democrats are the ones who advocate for more social benefits and less strict immigration policies - as if fiscal conservatism and merit-based immigration policy are inherently racist. This type of destructive rhetoric keeps a lot of minorities and women in the liberal camp because it's just a lot easier to fit in, especially for those with a more centrist view.

Now that there is a liar,conman,fraud and Russian Puppet at the top, any minority and many thinking white people are not gonna fall into the GOP trap.

Actually, now that there is someone "at the top" who isn't afraid to say it like it is, even at the risk of offending others, many minorities and thinking white people are realizing that they've been idiots to support the liberal agenda all this time. Reading DCUM has certainly been eye-opening for me.
-DP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He'll win for several reasons:
Most Americans outside of the DC stay at home mom demographic sees a big change and high consumer confidence levels.

Liberals have gone off the deep-end. They're insane. Everything is no racist, there are 37 different genders, trans-gay rallies in elementary school, mass importation of illegal immigrants, abolish ICE/CPB, Green New Deal, crazy twitter outrage mobs, antfa...most people want nothing to do with that crap. Even Europeans are laughing at us about this politically correct BS

Economy is good thanks to Trump

People don't believe what the media says anyways, they see the media as sycophants to the democrat party

no one who is sane supports partial birth abortion or late term abortion. The pro-abortion crowd does, most Americans do not.

Men are being tired of constantly being told they're sexist. They're not, they simply are confused. Women want equal rights and demand to be in high level CEO positions because they're "under represented." They're also under represented in fields such as Sewage Treatment, garbage men, plumbers, HVAC, carpentry, telecommunication techs who go out in the cold and fix your internet, cops, paramedics, lumberjacks, fishers, iron workers, power-line workers, roofers, truck drivers. Consequently, those are jobs with higher fatality rates more than any other job and not one I listed has higher than 25% female labor force. Only one remotely close is farmers, who only 24% are female. Most of what I listed is 90% male or above

People are tired of being told everything they do and say is racist. It's not. The only people who seem stuck on race is virtue signaling white liberals. Normal people aren't.

Those are just a few of the reasons.

Russia puppet, liar,fraud , conman and his cult members aren't aware that his approval never crossed an avg of 43% with best of news. Now that HE IS NOT EXONERATED BY MUELLER, he is going no where. His taxes are gonna be released one way or another. Russia drip drip will continue.

The cult is like the zombie that worships the leader even while he is exposed as fraud and liar and exits as the worst "precedent" in American history.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[/b]Liberals never practice what they preach. [b]They rant about the importance of diversity, not being racist and ensuring equality for women. But consider the field of potential candidates for the Democratic nomination. The dominant candidates are two white guys well in their late 70s and a white guy from Indiana.

The women, the Hispanic, the Asian and the African-American are almost non-starters.

Terms like never and always tend to squash rather than advance civil discourse. I wish you wouldn’t lead this way, esp as in this case, you are making a good point that for all the talk of diversity, the leading Presidential candidates on the D side are old white guys.

But you must allow that the emerging cadre of Dem leadership includes a range of races, creeds and colors, esp compared to the R side. Considering the projected demographic changes in the next 30 years, why aren’t Republicans cultivating diversity in their leadership?

So the field for Dem nominee includes all colors and creeds? So what? They are all running on far-leftist policies that would destroy the economy! Leftists need to stop looking at "not white" as the way to pick nominees. It's stupid identity politics - and it's racist.

What I am asking is - why aren’t Republicans doing more to cultivate leaders of color within their own ranks? If for no other reason that in the next 25 years, whites will be the minority. Why not begin to develop leadership among women as well? I am not talking about identity politics- that’s a throwaway defense. I am asking why, in the face of the changes coming in the demographics of America, Republicans are only focusing on their historic white base and not exploring development of support across Hispanics, AAs, etc.

I am not sure that anyone needs to cultivate leaders of a certain color. An organization that does that for the black and yellow people can use the same mechanism to do it for white people. Race and color of the skin are superficial features and should receive no consideration what so ever. This is *NOT* to say that we shouldn't cultivate leaders from different backgrounds and cultures so that they can bring their perspective. How similar is Kamala Harris' background and cultural experience from those of the average African American in urban environments, in the deep south, and etc. Not very similar. So why are we looking at Kamala Harris as if the color of her skin should give her some additional consideration for leadership?

I understand your perspective. It’s important that leaders be people who lead and inspire. I think it’s very worthy to work towards a color and gender blind society. However – I also think it’s human nature that people want to see people who look like themselves in leader ship. And, if demographically our country is growing more ethnically diverse, and more women are taking positions of leadership, it just seems to me that Republicans would be smart to recognize that cultivating people other than white men to be leaders or even potential leaders would broaden the depth of the party’s leadership potential. I’m not saying pick people for leadership positions blindly based on these characteristics alone. But having a perspective that these characteristics along with their policy positions add a depth of perspective to the party platform would be a refreshing thing for me to see. But perhaps what you’re saying is, the party itself is open to that possibility, it just has to happen organically.

By and large, occupations, including elected leaders, will to a large extent reflect participation. Just as certain jobs are predominantly filled by men, and some jobs predominantly are filled by women, we must not ignore the political affiliation tendencies of the sexes. Women tend to be more liberal in their political affiliation, and men tend to be more conservative. We would naturally expect the democratic party to have more women, and the conservative party to have more men. This isn't some failure of the two parties, it simply reflects the differences in political alignment that naturally arises out of differences between men and women. This is not something to be fixed - it's not broken.

One significant barrier that I see preventing minorities and women from being more open about their conservatism is that they are often met with incredulity by other people that share their demographic traits. Women and minority leaders are viewed as traitors to their kind as if they have some moral character defect. How many black Republicans have been called Uncle Toms or house negros? I myself have been questioned by other Asians how I could possibly be a Republican when it's well established that Republicans are a bunch of racists. How can I be a member of a party that is racist against Asians? When asked for evidence, my fellow Asians point out that Democrats are the ones who advocate for more social benefits and less strict immigration policies - as if fiscal conservatism and merit-based immigration policy are inherently racist. This type of destructive rhetoric keeps a lot of minorities and women in the liberal camp because it's just a lot easier to fit in, especially for those with a more centrist view.

Now that there is a liar,conman,fraud and Russian Puppet at the top, any minority and many thinking white people are not gonna fall into the GOP trap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[/b]Liberals never practice what they preach. They rant about the importance of diversity, not being racist and ensuring equality for women. But consider the field of potential candidates for the Democratic nomination. The dominant candidates are two white guys well in their late 70s and a white guy from Indiana.

The women, the Hispanic, the Asian and the African-American are almost non-starters.

Terms like never and always tend to squash rather than advance civil discourse. I wish you wouldn’t lead this way, esp as in this case, you are making a good point that for all the talk of diversity, the leading Presidential candidates on the D side are old white guys.

But you must allow that the emerging cadre of Dem leadership includes a range of races, creeds and colors, esp compared to the R side. Considering the projected demographic changes in the next 30 years, why aren’t Republicans cultivating diversity in their leadership?

So the field for Dem nominee includes all colors and creeds? So what? They are all running on far-leftist policies that would destroy the economy! Leftists need to stop looking at "not white" as the way to pick nominees. It's stupid identity politics - and it's racist.

What I am asking is - why aren’t Republicans doing more to cultivate leaders of color within their own ranks? If for no other reason that in the next 25 years, whites will be the minority. Why not begin to develop leadership among women as well? I am not talking about identity politics- that’s a throwaway defense. I am asking why, in the face of the changes coming in the demographics of America, Republicans are only focusing on their historic white base and not exploring development of support across Hispanics, AAs, etc.

I am not sure that anyone needs to cultivate leaders of a certain color. An organization that does that for the black and yellow people can use the same mechanism to do it for white people. Race and color of the skin are superficial features and should receive no consideration what so ever. This is *NOT* to say that we shouldn't cultivate leaders from different backgrounds and cultures so that they can bring their perspective. How similar is Kamala Harris' background and cultural experience from those of the average African American in urban environments, in the deep south, and etc. Not very similar. So why are we looking at Kamala Harris as if the color of her skin should give her some additional consideration for leadership?

I understand your perspective. It’s important that leaders be people who lead and inspire. I think it’s very worthy to work towards a color and gender blind society. However – I also think it’s human nature that people want to see people who look like themselves in leader ship. And, if demographically our country is growing more ethnically diverse, and more women are taking positions of leadership, it just seems to me that Republicans would be smart to recognize that cultivating people other than white men to be leaders or even potential leaders would broaden the depth of the party’s leadership potential. I’m not saying pick people for leadership positions blindly based on these characteristics alone. But having a perspective that these characteristics along with their policy positions add a depth of perspective to the party platform would be a refreshing thing for me to see. But perhaps what you’re saying is, the party itself is open to that possibility, it just has to happen organically.

By and large, occupations, including elected leaders, will to a large extent reflect participation. Just as certain jobs are predominantly filled by men, and some jobs predominantly are filled by women, we must not ignore the political affiliation tendencies of the sexes. Women tend to be more liberal in their political affiliation, and men tend to be more conservative. We would naturally expect the democratic party to have more women, and the conservative party to have more men. This isn't some failure of the two parties, it simply reflects the differences in political alignment that naturally arises out of differences between men and women. This is not something to be fixed - it's not broken.

One significant barrier that I see preventing minorities and women from being more open about their conservatism is that they are often met with incredulity by other people that share their demographic traits. Women and minority leaders are viewed as traitors to their kind as if they have some moral character defect. How many black Republicans have been called Uncle Toms or house negros? I myself have been questioned by other Asians how I could possibly be a Republican when it's well established that Republicans are a bunch of racists. How can I be a member of a party that is racist against Asians?[b] When asked for evidence, my fellow Asians point out that Democrats are the ones who advocate for more social benefits and less strict immigration policies - as if fiscal conservatism and merit-based immigration policy are inherently racist. This type of destructive rhetoric keeps a lot of minorities and women in the liberal camp because it's just a lot easier to fit in, especially for those with a more centrist view.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All that is fine but the US per capita consumption is still the highest by a mile. Imagine if everyone wants to consume at the Same level in ROW, and that’s what we are seeing today. The US should set good precedent NOT consumerist precedent that everyone wants to follow. A great nation should set a great example for others to follow. We are setting bad precedent in everything: selecting a conman by slavery era EC to needlessly big homes to BIG SUVs to conspicuous consumerism to poor public transit. An educated and smart people are supposed to think for the society and future generations NOT me me me shortsighted selfishness. It is sad.

Once again, consumption is strongly correlated to quality of life: countries with higher quality of life will consume more by definition. Saying that the US per-capita consumption is the highest is not saying much beyond that the US has a high quality of life. By the way, the US does not have the highest consumption "by a mile". You can check the per-capita rankings here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_household_final_consumption_expenditure_per_capita

I don't understand why you think consumption is bad. I agree it has become somewhat popular among impressionable youth to criticize consumerism as it is an idea supported by socialism and Marxist thought. It feeds into their sense of rebellion, to be counter-cultural. So edgy, so exciting!

Consumption will be more by $ amount because things are expensive in Europe even though Europeans consumes lot less. That is not a good measure at all.

Let us take carbon emissions/capita in which US is the leading emitter among large countries. If a county like Qatar with tiny population emits a lot per capita it is insignificant in global scale because of their tiny population.


https://cotap.org/per-capita-carbon-co2-emissions-by-country/

It is not true that countries with higher income consume the most because there are other factors like tax, subsidies that affect consumption. Western Europe is as rich as the US but their per capita consumption is lot less because they work to reduce emissions unlike the SUV driving Americans. Europeans also use public transit, get a big portion of their electricity from renewables and nuclear energy.

So the US is not a torch bearer when it comes to carbon emissions and infact we are the worst culprit since we are the only ones that pulled out of paris summit.

Thanks for fixing the quotes. Things cost more in Europe but that doesn't suddenly mean a dollar spent in Europe somehow has less value than a dollar in the US. If an egg costs $2 in Europe, that egg represents $2 of economic value in Europe, even if the egg only contributes $1 of economic value in the US since it only sells for $1 here. What counts is the dollar value, not what the underlying good/service is. Different goods/services have different values to different people in different locations.

I agree with the observation that the US has higher greenhouse gas emissions per capita compared to other developed countries. This is definitely one area we need to improve on. My point in this regard is that if you look at our energy use and emissions history, it is going in the right direction: energy consumption per $ GDP is going down, and our overall emissions are also going down despite growing population and growing consumption. Our goal should be to continue driving towards further efficiency. Consumerism is not the problem, it is the solution.

I am puzzled by your Paris accord comment. Were you not aware of the recent revelation that China is responsible for damaging the ozone layer to the detriment of decades of efforts by the US and European countries? Guess who is a Paris Accord signatory? How is being a part of the Paris Accord meaningful when most of the developed countries that are part of the Paris Accord failed to meet the proposed emission reduction goals. Guess which country achieved the largest reduction in carbon emissions? Read this:

https://capitalresearch.org/article/u-s-achieves-largest-decrease-in-carbon-emissionswithout-the-paris-climate-accord/

Again, don't fall into the common liberal trap of thinking that defaulting to some international body means a country is doing the right thing. Results matter. Empty promises don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[/b]Liberals never practice what they preach. [b]They rant about the importance of diversity, not being racist and ensuring equality for women. But consider the field of potential candidates for the Democratic nomination. The dominant candidates are two white guys well in their late 70s and a white guy from Indiana.

The women, the Hispanic, the Asian and the African-American are almost non-starters.

Terms like never and always tend to squash rather than advance civil discourse. I wish you wouldn’t lead this way, esp as in this case, you are making a good point that for all the talk of diversity, the leading Presidential candidates on the D side are old white guys.

But you must allow that the emerging cadre of Dem leadership includes a range of races, creeds and colors, esp compared to the R side. Considering the projected demographic changes in the next 30 years, why aren’t Republicans cultivating diversity in their leadership?

So the field for Dem nominee includes all colors and creeds? So what? They are all running on far-leftist policies that would destroy the economy! Leftists need to stop looking at "not white" as the way to pick nominees. It's stupid identity politics - and it's racist.

What I am asking is - why aren’t Republicans doing more to cultivate leaders of color within their own ranks? If for no other reason that in the next 25 years, whites will be the minority. Why not begin to develop leadership among women as well? I am not talking about identity politics- that’s a throwaway defense. I am asking why, in the face of the changes coming in the demographics of America, Republicans are only focusing on their historic white base and not exploring development of support across Hispanics, AAs, etc.

I am not sure that anyone needs to cultivate leaders of a certain color. An organization that does that for the black and yellow people can use the same mechanism to do it for white people. Race and color of the skin are superficial features and should receive no consideration what so ever. This is *NOT* to say that we shouldn't cultivate leaders from different backgrounds and cultures so that they can bring their perspective. How similar is Kamala Harris' background and cultural experience from those of the average African American in urban environments, in the deep south, and etc. Not very similar. So why are we looking at Kamala Harris as if the color of her skin should give her some additional consideration for leadership?

Well the GOP plays white identity politics to the hilt and the “poorly educated”, poor, older white men almost always vote for a white man. What has a poor white man in Appalachia got to do with the conman billionaire from NYC? Nada. Zilch. Yet they identified with the liar-in-chief because he was one of them even though he had no life experience any where close to them.

Stop trolling. Trump never claimed to share the same experience as poor whites in Appalachia because he is also white. People from different backgrounds *CAN* share the same common vision, which is to put the interest of America first. It's different to share a common goal than to identify with someone based on the color of their skin.

I call BS on that. The liar, pussy grabber panders to the white supremacists all the time. He didn’t put America first by any means, that’s just his successful con job. He made enough of his cult members believe in his con. He gave tax cuts for the rich and tried very hard to take away Obamacare which helped them. He cut education budgets which helps the poor and middle class. There is no wall. Dreamers are still here. Obamacare is still here. China trade Deficits are at the highest ever, debt to gdp ratio is 100% , agriculture is suffering due to tariffs, no immigration fix, no new coal/ steel jobs and in fact many coal plants have shut down..... on and on...

If he is America first he should pass a bill with mandatory e-verify, that’s it. But he will never ever do that because he can’t recruit illegals in his properties. He is a fraud and his cult has fallen for his con job.

If all you are going to do is engage in nonstop trite and juvenile name calling, you'll just be ignored.

+1.

Let's ignore he or she who can't make an actual argument.

PP was making so many good points about the GOP and Trump that simply can't be wished away. There is a lot of truth about the GOP which has become a party for the rich and no one can defend Trump on his personality, behavior or integrity. The president is the standard bearer for the country and we should be ashamed that he represents us all. But Trump is good at PR and marketing, which he is using to maximum effect even though he has NO POLICY WINS other than the unpopular tax cuts.

See, you both live in the same little bubble and parrot the same talking points.

Meanwhile, to a good number of posters in this thread, and as much as we don't like Trump as a person, we see a more prosperous, safe and peaceful country around us, especially compared to the sh!tty years 2014-2016.

2020 is not about who's our Preacher-in-Chief. It's about President and Commander-in-Chief. And Trump's results have exceeded the expectations by this non-Trump voter.

Someone earlier in this thread compared Trump to a surgeon she knew -- abrasive, no bed-side manners...and yet the most competent in town, so everyone went to him.

This is exactly how I feel.

-Another non-Trump voter who will be voting for him this time

I actually work in healthcare, and agree completely with the surgeon analogy.

You are now gonna vote for a Russian Puppet not just a conman, fraud, liar and Pussy Grabber, like before. Shame on fake patriots like yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mueller’s little non-speech about what was not found only furthers the exoneration of President Trump. End of story.

"If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," Mueller said.


The Liar,Conman, Russian puppet, Pussy grabber is a criminal who is trying to escape through our legal loopholes. He can't escape that easily. Its not over yet. his taxes are gonna be released one way or the other. Russia probe isn't over as Manafort and tone are still going through their respective cases. Manafort colluded with Russian spy Kilimnik and Stone worked with Wikileaks.