Republicans *do* choose who gets to have a chance at the nomination, with dollars, support, and votes.

You're implying here that Republican voters and interest-groups and donors are wasting their money and votes on people they don't really support in order to change the national paradigm of the Republican Party and seem more diverse. Wow that's one big conspiracy theory. This is just a subjective talking-point to appease Democrats, and I doubt that voters and donors are wasting their time if they don't genuinely support the candidates. If you have evidence of this illusion, link me.

only 1 or 2 have any shot at winning the general election

You know how many latinos have a shot at winning the general election in the Democratic Party? I have a hint: the number as a word starts with "z" and ends with "ero". I rest my case.

Do you seriously believe that Sarah Palin was *actually* decently qualified to hold the position of President of the US (by virtue of being a VP, and hence the 'backup plan' if McCain happened to have died while President)?

"Sarah Palin is a nut job. No need to say anything more. She and Trump share one thing in common - illiteracy when they speak. Worst VP candidate since Dan Quayle." - JaiBharat (https://www.warlight.net/Forum/132504-trump-busted)

That was an actual quote I made. Again you're being deceptive. I don't choose the VP nomination and neither do Republican voters. Its usually left to the Presidential Nominee. Do I think she was qualified? Yes, she was the governor of Alaska and that automatically makes here "qualified" (since this is a subjective term that has no real definition in the political sphere). Do I think she should have been chosen? No. There was plenty of better female VP picks. I actually have one off the top of my head: Condolezza Rice (yes she was a mushy Republican, but more educated than Palin and fits well with McCain running as a moderate).

Edited 2/15/2016 17:22:43

It's just a show to appeal to a broader audience; to maximize chances of winning the general election. There's no *real* diversity in the Republican party.

Then by that definition there is no "real" diversity in the Democrat party either. The Democrats have quite literally made careers out of pandering to minority groups. Never mind that they don't keep most their promises, never mind that many ethnic minorities are still in the same/a similar situation they've been in for awhile. Just blame the evil GOP and keep giving more false hope. "Diversity" is just a buzz word for the Democrats to gain more votes with, same goes for Republicans.

By the way, if Trump gets the nomination, all this talk of Republican diversity will be moot. The base will have chosen their man: an obnoxious old rich white guy

Yes, this ONE pick will settle the entire question for all time.

Yes, Republicans *do* choose who gets to have a chance at the nomination, with dollars, support, and votes.

As does every political party in existence. What's your point?

Do you seriously believe that Sarah Palin was *actually* decently qualified to hold the position of President of the US

I think Jai summed this one up pretty well. "Qualified" is heavily subjective when it comes to politics. Palin, by legal definition, was eligible for the job. However, you could have a 12 hour debate drawing arbitrary lines about what makes a politician truly qualified or not.

For the record, no, I don't think Palin would have made a good leader. However, the extent to which the Left uses her as a punching bag has gotten a bit ridiculous and is becoming rather lame at this point.

and sign that the Republicans couldn't into real diversity if they tried?

Please define "real diversity". Do only minority people who agree with your specific ideology count towards this magical definition of diversity?

That's why it's such a laugh to read some of you guys trying to say the exact opposite of reality

I'm sorry, but your personal worldview does not substitute as reality.

Edited 2/15/2016 18:23:30

Wct and people like him are why I hate the Democratic Party more than the Republicans. How you bastards got more smug than religous fundamentalists is beyond me.

keep in mind that what you call "extemist left", "borderling socialist", would actually be considered a pretty mainstream candidate in most of Europe. It gives you perspective on where american politics actually stand in the political spectrum, wich is pretty far to the right of every other developped democracies. The thing is we wouldn't even have a candidate like Bernie in Europe, because we already have a public funding of education, healthcare and elections. There is no perfect system and it varies from country to country. But no-one in France for example, no matter from what end of the political spectrum, would even try to overturn these social advances. It's like women's right to vote, or paid vacations, it is just comon sense now. I'm sure americans will come to it in time.

Yes, we should all try to be like Europe - how did that work out in Portugal, Italy, Spain, Greece for the economy, and everywhere for rape rates?

America has always been different from Europe - and we have almost always been better in most aspects

keep in mind that what you call "extemist left", "borderling socialist", would actually be considered a pretty mainstream candidate in most of Europe. It gives you perspective on where american politics actually stand in the political spectrum, wich is pretty far to the right of every other developped democracies.

I'm confused about what the point of this comment is when discussing minority representation in the Republican and Democratic parties?

Western Europe is far-left...cool beans...we already knew that. That should have no impact on America though, since the point of American government is not to become more European (unless you believe that...which is cultural imperialism).

Second, when discussing far-right conservatism in developed democracies Europeans seem to selectively forget Israel (ruled by Likud, Shas, Kulanu, Jewish Home, and United Torah Judaism), South Korea (governed by the Saenuri Party and the New Right), Hungary (ruled by Orban's Fidesz Party), Russia (who's Duma is controlled by center-right United Russia and far-right LDPR), and Singapore (governed by Lee Hsien Loong's People's Action Party). I could also throw in Australia (which has one of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world), Poland, Ukraine (the Poroshenko government is literally supported by neo-nazis and no one even comes close to that in the Republican Party), and other eastern european governments.

Edited 2/15/2016 20:01:20

+1 JaiBharat

How you bastards got more smug than religous fundamentalists is beyond me.

Because it's the same base belief in a "great cause": that your ideas are perfect and thus everyone else must be incorrect, regardless of facts, logic, or reality.

ANY extreme is bad. Too many carrots will make you sick.

Second, when discussing far-right conservatism in developed democracies Europeans seem to selectively forget Israel (ruled by Likud, Shas, Kulanu, Jewish Home, and United Torah Judaism), South Korea (governed by the Saenuri Party and the New Right), Hungary (ruled by Orban's Fidesz Party), Russia (who's Duma is controlled by center-right United Russia and far-right LDPR), and Singapore (governed by Lee Hsien Loong's People's Action Party). I could also throw in Australia (which has one of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world), Poland, Ukraine (the Poroshenko government is literally supported by neo-nazis and no one even comes close to that in the Republican Party), and other eastern european governments.

+0,5. I don't think of Ukraine as "developed". Other examples: Lebanon (March 8 Alliance), Morocco (Justice and Development+National Independent Rally+Popular Movement), Kazakhstan (Glowing Homeland Democratic Folk), Macedonia (IMRODPMNU), Latvia (Union+Union of Greens and Farmers+National Alliance), Ireland (Irish Family).

Edited 2/16/2016 01:45:16

I don't think of Ukraine as "developed".

Fair enough point. They deposed of a democratically elected leader with a coup just to get a corrupt candyman leading their country.

They deposed of a democratically elected leader with a coup just to get a corrupt candyman leading their country.

Neither was democratically picked.

Republicans *do* choose who gets to have a chance at the nomination, with dollars, support, and votes.

You're implying here that Republican voters and interest-groups and donors are wasting their money and votes on people they don't really support in order to change the national paradigm of the Republican Party and seem more diverse.

You really need to look up the word 'imply'. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

I'm implying nothing of the sort.

Wow that's one big conspiracy theory.

Wow, that's a flimsy straw man.

"Sarah Palin is a nut job. No need to say anything more. She and Trump share one thing in common - illiteracy when they speak. Worst VP candidate since Dan Quayle." - JaiBharat

I agree. But I have news for you. Sarah Palin *was* their pick for 'diversity' when they knew they'd be facing Obama.

In other words, she's the best they could come up with.

The 'diversity' people running for nomination this election are almost all just a bunch of Sarah Palins. They are the *best* the Republicans can come up with, and they all suck, about as much as Palin sucked. That's because the Republican party as a whole doesn't have a big enough pool of 'diverse' people to be able to pick the cream of the crop. There's not enough crop to have cream to begin with -- they have to make do with the dregs.

Lots of people *supported* Sarah Palin. They wanted her to win. Just like lots of people are supporting/supported Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Bobby Jindal, etc. They want/wanted them to win. But they are just Sarah Palins. Even Ted Cruz seems pretty much a Palin, but I could be wrong, I don't know much about him. I don't know a lot about Marco Rubio either, but from what I gather, he seems the least Palin-esque (i.e. the most *actually* serious/competent).

And that's it. That is the *best* the Republicans can do to come up with some 'diversity' in their candidate pool. In other words, this sorry bunch is the elite of the Republican 'diversity' contingency.

When the Democrats weren't even trying to come up with a 'diversity' candidate, they got Hillary Clinton, who had a serious shot at being the first woman president, and Barack Obama who unexpectedly defeated even her for the nomination, and who then became the first Black president.

The Democrats don't even have to *try* that hard. They've got a cornucopia of a crop, and just skim the cream off the top. (Not that they are 'all that' in terms of policy, just diversity, and only then in contrast with the Republicans.)

Edited 2/16/2016 10:36:48

Yes, she was the governor of Alaska and that automatically makes here "qualified" (since this is a subjective term that has no real definition in the political sphere).

I'm actually using the term to gauge *your* response, and *your* perception of 'qualified', so it being subjective is kinda the point.

So, you think she's a nutjob, but she's 'qualified'? Says a lot about your judgment, man.

I think Jai summed this one up pretty well. "Qualified" is heavily subjective when it comes to politics. Palin, by legal definition, was eligible for the job. However, you could have a 12 hour debate drawing arbitrary lines about what makes a politician truly qualified or not.

I don't need a 12 hour debate, I just need *your* response. It's not a question about *actual* qualifications, it's a question about whether *you* *believe* she's actually qualified.

For the record, no, I don't think Palin would have made a good leader.

Good. We're on the same page there then.

So, my point to you then, is the same point I made to Jai. Nearly all of the 'diversity' candidates you guys are going on about are *just* Sarah Palins. They are just about as qualified as she is. They are the bottom of the barrel. Their *only* redeeming features are their 'diversity'. Only a couple rise above that, and I'm not even sure about that.

Edited 2/16/2016 05:09:03

This thread isn't even worth calling out on its cancer.

Please define "real diversity".

I mean that when you survey the people who identify as Republicans, you would find that they *actually* come from various groups in proportion (or close to it) to the overall American public. I don't just mean the few candidates we have on offer, I mean the party as a whole. *That* group of people are *not* diverse. They are *heavily* skewed towards a few distinct demographics: 1) Rich old white dudes, 2) lower-middle class under-educated, religious-right white folks, 3, 4, etc.) maybe one or two other identifiable groups, like perhaps college educated libertarian white folks. But they tend to elect mostly men (Democrats too, but in lesser proportion), so even the 'folks' part is heavily skewed towards 'dudes'.

I mean 'real diversity' like they mean it when it's studied scientifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_diversity

Do only minority people who agree with your specific ideology count towards this magical definition of diversity?

No, definitely not. That's the opposite of diversity: uniformity.

I'm sorry, but your personal worldview does not substitute as reality.

You're right. That's why I constantly try to shape my worldview to match closer to reality. You should try it some time, it's great!

Edited 2/16/2016 05:21:16

Wct and people like him are why I hate the Democratic Party more than the Republicans. How you bastards got more smug than religous fundamentalists is beyond me.

I'm not a member of the Democratic Party. I'm not even American. I'm far to the left of most Democrats.

Wct and people like him are why I hate the Democratic Party more than the Republicans. How you bastards got more smug than religous fundamentalists is beyond me.


I'm not a member of the Democratic Party. I'm not even American. I'm far to the left of most Democrats.

You clearly lean more to the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, and you're very smug. And just about noone should 100% match with the Democratic or Republican Party - doing so is just unnescessary all-or-nothing condone-genocide-if-they-do-it outlook, or justifiable, but very rare (I mean, what are the odds?).

Also, you talk about qualifications several times. Noone is qualified. Being a governor or senator or mayor helps, but that doesn't qualify you for running a country and making orders, against running bit of a provinz and mostly following orders. In true democracy, the only thing that qualifies you is how many votes you get, and that's it.

@wtc, just stop arguing with these people, they are never going to accept your logic. At the end of the day, you can show them all the data and in the world, and if it contradicts their beliefs, they are not going to accept it.
Ex: Global warming

That's why I left this thread, and have left the others.