Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:37 pmNationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
When/How much will the diversity of US Presidents increase?
Page 4 of 4
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:37 pmPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:37 pmHispanic, African American, Female, and Asian American are all likely.
Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:45 pmRaumm wrote:Hispanic, African American, Female, and Asian American are all likely.
I'm not American are there any Asian prominent politicians in America? Though being the land of opportunity, it's not necessarily a requirement, but still.
Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:52 pmThe Senate Pro Tempore is Asian if that counts.
Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:54 pmI rule out nothing.
Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:11 pmGordonisia wrote:The one that seems really far off is a homosexual President. Even though more and more people are becoming comfortable with homosexuality, I can't see an openly gay Commander-in-Chief for at least another 100 years.
Depending on your interpretation of him, we already had a gay president in James Buchanan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buch ... ationships
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:46 pmAtrebates wrote:Gordonisia wrote:The one that seems really far off is a homosexual President. Even though more and more people are becoming comfortable with homosexuality, I can't see an openly gay Commander-in-Chief for at least another 100 years.
Depending on your interpretation of him, we already had a gay president in James Buchanan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buch ... ationships
And it even seems to have been widely assumed by his contemporaries that he was gay.
I mean, he didn't make a big point out of it, but the closet door was pretty wide open on his relationship, so at the very least, we've had a president who was at the time perceived as homosexual. Even if he somehow was not.
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:53 pmIn response to the idea that an Atheist will NEVER be elected.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/2 ... 08044.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/2 ... 08044.html
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:57 pmAnything may happen at any given time.
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:13 pmTubbsalot wrote:The House of Petain wrote:Minorities account for nearly 20% of the pop. in Canada, what are you talking about? Can one of the members of the British royal family not marry another white person for once, or would those colored folks just not fit in? Not to mention that still doesn't answer the fucking question on how us electing a black guy is not a how great America is, that's somehow a big fucking step for us. Yet Europe -the land of tolerance and happy time- has failed to elect a minority PM, where the monarchies -though fucking hereditary, only seem to be interested in fucking with their own kind.
But you're right, that would get in the way with how fucking bad America is.
I was talking about Muslims, which er, I would have thought was obvious on account of how I said "Muslims." Even so, with only 20% non-white, it's hardly surprising that there hasn't been a non-white Canadian PM yet. That's solidly a minority, and a large number of them are recent migrants.
The British royals pretty much have to marry Anglo-Saxons to avoid rabble rousing from That Sort Of Person, although there's a tendency toward monoracial marriages in any case (racially mixed marriages making up some 11% of the total, if I remember correctly) probably due to cultural agreement between individuals of the same background.
Nor should it be ignored that Europe generally has far fewer non-whites than America, and again, many of them are recent migrants. (I also doubt that not a single European country has elected a minority candidate, although there's no easy way to check that.)
And finally electing a black man in America is a big deal because of the perceived prejudice towards black Americans from many in the country, which isn't the case for countries in Europe (although with the developing islamophobia in the region, who knows). Not that I said electing a black guy was a big step for America - just that it wasn't a big step for the world.
tl;dr: you are wrong
Hardly. Europe and its immigration policies are racist. Bring in "colored" folks because they specialize in medicine, in computers, in some form of science, and when that minority gets to big, elect right-wing parties and enact right-wing policies. Ban minarets, ban the veil, scream and yell, because Europe claims tolerance, it claims understanding and yes it has been ahead of the curve on gay rights, on female leaders and on abortion, but only if you are white. For the most Europe, lacks any racial diversity. The lack of blacks, the lack of Asians, the lack of Hispanics, who if there represent a minuscule fraction. And the moment that culture gains some recognition by the mainstream, Europe becomes reactionary.
My point is that people treat the US electing a black man as a big deal. And it is. And while I hope to see more diversity in the White House, I can't help feel annoyed that there is a lack of interest or concern or debate for a black PM in the UK, or a Muslim Chancellor in Germany, or an Asian prince in Spain. That somehow when the US elects a black guy, it's a "good job, about time you joined the 21st century," but when every PM in the UK's history is white, it's somehow not even an issue worth debating.
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:17 pmHopefully there will never be a Jewish president.
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:21 pm
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:23 pmWest Gaul wrote:Hopefully there will never be a Jewish president.
Um. Why?
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:27 pmOf course a Republican female President is entirely possible, case in point, Michelle Bachmann who tried to get the Republican Nomination, even though her campaign bomb-shelled, she was a female republican presidential candidate.
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:28 pmPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:40 pmMy only concern with a Jewish president would be Israel-related backlash from different corners from the world. I don't think that anything would come from it, but don't pretend as though that isn't a hot topic or that we'd have to step even more carefully than we do already.
I think that a Hindu present will be last simply because Hinduism isn't quite as big as the rest in the population or media right now. I don't rule it out, but I see it being harder to get a winning candidate from a smaller pool of people.
I think that a Hindu present will be last simply because Hinduism isn't quite as big as the rest in the population or media right now. I don't rule it out, but I see it being harder to get a winning candidate from a smaller pool of people.
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:10 pmThe Mongol Ilkhanate wrote:Imsogone wrote:
This exemplifies the mindset that will prevent the election of a female president anytime soon, if at all. It's not a flat-out stated bias, it's a bias of omission - the omission of the female pronoun. It's not that women are actively and deliberately excluded, it's that they aren't thought of in the first place and it's not considered odd or unusual.
Or, ya know, I'm just using the universal "he" for a person of unknown gender, grammatically correct, unlike "they" or "them"
Way to read WAY too much into what I said.
Plural "they" is not grammatically incorrect, it goes back hundreds of years. Besides, if all linguistic change was seen as incorrect, Modern English wouldn't exist.
What do you think "left" means?