Debate Now Diversity versus Adversity

[Derideo_Te]

The political left embraces the concept of diversity.

From the outset of the current administration the political right has engaged in a policy of adversity towards the agenda proposed by the president.

The demographics of this nation show a strong trend towards an even greater diversity.

So does it make sense to be adverse to policies that address this growing diversity?

Should the next leader of the free world be someone who embraces diversity?

Or should they continue to embrace adversity to diversity?

The question for this thread is which way should this nation go in the future?

Apart from avoiding ad homs there will be no other "special rules" since this is obviously going to get into areas where people have passionate feelings. Please feel free to express them openly and candidly. We the People need to have this debate so let's air our differences and see if there is any common ground in our positions.

Enjoy!

 

[jillian]

The political left embraces the concept of diversity.

From the outset of the current administration the political right has engaged in a policy of adversity towards the agenda proposed by the president.

The demographics of this nation show a strong trend towards an even greater diversity.

So does it make sense to be adverse to policies that address this growing diversity?

Should the next leader of the free world be someone who embraces diversity?

Or should they continue to embrace adversity to diversity?

The question for this thread is which way should this nation go in the future?

Apart from avoiding ad homs there will be no other "special rules" since this is obviously going to get into areas where people have passionate feelings. Please feel free to express them openly and candidly. We the People need to have this debate so let's air our differences and see if there is any common ground in our positions.

Enjoy!

i suspect the far right will continue to lose the presidency unless they can embrace diversity. the only GOP candidate who seems to understand this (although I disagree with many things he stands for) is rand paul. now if he'd only learn not to melt down when he's asked questions.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The political left embraces the concept of diversity.

From the outset of the current administration the political right has engaged in a policy of adversity towards the agenda proposed by the president.

The demographics of this nation show a strong trend towards an even greater diversity.

So does it make sense to be adverse to policies that address this growing diversity?

Should the next leader of the free world be someone who embraces diversity?

Or should they continue to embrace adversity to diversity?

The question for this thread is which way should this nation go in the future?

Apart from avoiding ad homs there will be no other "special rules" since this is obviously going to get into areas where people have passionate feelings. Please feel free to express them openly and candidly. We the People need to have this debate so let's air our differences and see if there is any common ground in our positions.

Enjoy!

i suspect the far right will continue to lose the presidency unless they can embrace diversity. the only GOP candidate who seems to understand this (although I disagree with many things he stands for) is rand paul. now if he'd only learn not to melt down when he's asked questions.

Actually Jeb Bush does embrace diversity too. If he wasn't locked into the heritage of his father and brother (19 of his 21 advisers were in their administrations) Jeb would be a viable alternative IMO.

Rubio would be a diversity candidate but he really doesn't come across as a viable candidate.

Rand Paul is smart enough to grasp the concept of diversity and he has actually embraced it by reaching out. In that respect he is by far the most savvy of the rightwing candidates. Yes, he does come unstuck with the media and his Libertarian ideas are going to be a tough sell.

The rest on the right seem to be firing up their base with adversity slogans as a means of gaining support. Short term that works in the primaries but it can backfire in the general.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well, take a look at Hillary Clinton's opening shot:



In that video, in the first 82 seconds, we see:

-a white, middle-aged woman
-a latina mother with a lovely young girl (I think she is latina, but some asian may be in her as well, at any rate, she is stunningly beautiful and as American as apple pie)
-2 latino brothers, who speak en espagnol
-a white mother with her little boy, the mother is going back to work
-a black couple expecting a baby soon.
-a young asian female college student
-two gay guys holding hands, the one saying he is going to marry the other
-a young blatino boy
-a middle aged white woman, preparing for retirement
-a mixed couple, with a lovely dog.
-a muscular white dude who is an entenpreneur, has the "Scranton, Pennsylvania" blue-collar look. And HE is the segue to Hillary Clinton.

A number of people are shown after Hillary makes the announcement, some of them from the cast already shown at the beginning, some of them new, including a lesbian pair at 1:59.

So, before the announcement, we saw 17 very different people (and one dog!).

I would wager that the majority of those people would never be allowed in a GOP political ad.

Indeed, Hillary is going for diversity, which has been the Democratic Party base for a long time, and this trend was accelerated by the so-called "Obama Coalition" which is actually a false term. That is the new Democratic coalition we saw in 2008, again in 2012, and I am quite sure it will continue into 2016 unabated.

The GOP just doesn't get it that people have VERY long memories, especially for adversity.

Gay people know they have been and are still being demonized by the GOP, especially by many of it's current declared or prospective candidates. So do Latinos, so do many older people.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well, take a look at Hillary Clinton's opening shot:



In that video in the first 82 seconds, we see:

-a white, middle-aged woman
-a latina mother with a lovely young girl (I think she is latina, but some asian may be in her as well, at any rate, she is stunningly beautiful and as American as apple pie)
-2 latino brothers, who speak en espagnol
-a white mother with her little boy, the mother is going back to work
-a black couple expecting a baby soon.
-a young asian female college student
-two gay guys holding hands, the one saying he is going to marry the other
-a young blatino boy
-a middle aged white woman, preparing for retirement
-a mixed couple, with a lovely dog.
-a muscular white dude who is an entenpreneur, has the "Scranton, Pennsylvania" blue-collar look. And HE is the segue to Hillary Clinton.

A number of people are shown after Hillary makes the announcement, some of them from the cast already shown at the beginning, some of them new, including a lesbian pair at 1:59.

So, before the announcement, we saw 17 very different people (and one dog!).

I would wager that the majority of those people would never be allowed in a GOP political ad.

Indeed, Hillary is going for diversity, which has been the Democratic Party base for a long time, and this trend was accelerated by the so-called "Obama Coalition" which is actually a false term. That is the new Democratic coalition we saw in 2008, again in 2012, and I am quite sure it will continue into 2016 unabated.

The GOP just doesn't get it that people have VERY long memories, especially for adversity.

Gay people know they have been and are still being demonized by the GOP, especially by many of it's current declared or prospective candidates. So do Latinos, so do many older people.

Diversity is a fact of life in America today. I strongly suspect that my own state will become a white minority in the 2020 Census. Embracing that reality is smart politics IMO. Yes, people do have long memories about past injustices, both perceived and real. For example, how many still refer to the Civil War as the war of northern aggression?

Ask any business about understanding your market and riding a trend and they will tell you that those are the keys to success. Equally so they will tell you that ignoring trends and catering to a shrinking market is not a great business model.

Politics is no different in that it uses advertising to spread the message and to motivate people to act. Just as Hillary used a message of diversity in her video the images of an all white audience surrounding Cruz while he announced his candidacy sends a powerful message to the American people.

 

[jillian]

The political left embraces the concept of diversity.

From the outset of the current administration the political right has engaged in a policy of adversity towards the agenda proposed by the president.

The demographics of this nation show a strong trend towards an even greater diversity.

So does it make sense to be adverse to policies that address this growing diversity?

Should the next leader of the free world be someone who embraces diversity?

Or should they continue to embrace adversity to diversity?

The question for this thread is which way should this nation go in the future?

Apart from avoiding ad homs there will be no other "special rules" since this is obviously going to get into areas where people have passionate feelings. Please feel free to express them openly and candidly. We the People need to have this debate so let's air our differences and see if there is any common ground in our positions.

Enjoy!

i suspect the far right will continue to lose the presidency unless they can embrace diversity. the only GOP candidate who seems to understand this (although I disagree with many things he stands for) is rand paul. now if he'd only learn not to melt down when he's asked questions.

Actually Jeb Bush does embrace diversity too. If he wasn't locked into the heritage of his father and brother (19 of his 21 advisers were in their administrations) Jeb would be a viable alternative IMO.

Rubio would be a diversity candidate but he really doesn't come across as a viable candidate.

Rand Paul is smart enough to grasp the concept of diversity and he has actually embraced it by reaching out. In that respect he is by far the most savvy of the rightwing candidates. Yes, he does come unstuck with the media and his Libertarian ideas are going to be a tough sell.

The rest on the right seem to be firing up their base with adversity slogans as a means of gaining support. Short term that works in the primaries but it can backfire in the general.

you're correct about jeb. he has always been immigrant friendly. his problem is he's adopted the failed policies of his brother and cheney. i think that is going to mitigate against him.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The political left embraces the concept of diversity.

From the outset of the current administration the political right has engaged in a policy of adversity towards the agenda proposed by the president.

The demographics of this nation show a strong trend towards an even greater diversity.

So does it make sense to be adverse to policies that address this growing diversity?

Should the next leader of the free world be someone who embraces diversity?

Or should they continue to embrace adversity to diversity?

The question for this thread is which way should this nation go in the future?

Apart from avoiding ad homs there will be no other "special rules" since this is obviously going to get into areas where people have passionate feelings. Please feel free to express them openly and candidly. We the People need to have this debate so let's air our differences and see if there is any common ground in our positions.

Enjoy!

i suspect the far right will continue to lose the presidency unless they can embrace diversity. the only GOP candidate who seems to understand this (although I disagree with many things he stands for) is rand paul. now if he'd only learn not to melt down when he's asked questions.

Since when did the "far right" (whoever that is) win the presidency ?

They never have.

Let's hope they never do.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Conservatives will contend for the presidency when they develop a message that will appeal to a diverse base.

If conservatives modify their principles...they won't be conservatives.

I love watching them scream at each other over this.

My own hope is that Bozo the Clown will run for President. He'd be a massive improvement over Bush and Obama.

 

[jillian]

The political left embraces the concept of diversity.

From the outset of the current administration the political right has engaged in a policy of adversity towards the agenda proposed by the president.

The demographics of this nation show a strong trend towards an even greater diversity.

So does it make sense to be adverse to policies that address this growing diversity?

Should the next leader of the free world be someone who embraces diversity?

Or should they continue to embrace adversity to diversity?

The question for this thread is which way should this nation go in the future?

Apart from avoiding ad homs there will be no other "special rules" since this is obviously going to get into areas where people have passionate feelings. Please feel free to express them openly and candidly. We the People need to have this debate so let's air our differences and see if there is any common ground in our positions.

Enjoy!

i suspect the far right will continue to lose the presidency unless they can embrace diversity. the only GOP candidate who seems to understand this (although I disagree with many things he stands for) is rand paul. now if he'd only learn not to melt down when he's asked questions.

Since when did the "far right" (whoever that is) win the presidency ?

They never have.

Let's hope they never do.

the far right... which is most of the clown car... CAN'T win the presidency. con't you read? that's my point.

hint: richard nixon couldn't get past a GOP wacko primary now. that speaks volumes.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The political left embraces the concept of diversity.

From the outset of the current administration the political right has engaged in a policy of adversity towards the agenda proposed by the president.

The demographics of this nation show a strong trend towards an even greater diversity.

So does it make sense to be adverse to policies that address this growing diversity?

Should the next leader of the free world be someone who embraces diversity?

Or should they continue to embrace adversity to diversity?

The question for this thread is which way should this nation go in the future?

Apart from avoiding ad homs there will be no other "special rules" since this is obviously going to get into areas where people have passionate feelings. Please feel free to express them openly and candidly. We the People need to have this debate so let's air our differences and see if there is any common ground in our positions.

Enjoy!

i suspect the far right will continue to lose the presidency unless they can embrace diversity. the only GOP candidate who seems to understand this (although I disagree with many things he stands for) is rand paul. now if he'd only learn not to melt down when he's asked questions.

Since when did the "far right" (whoever that is) win the presidency ?

They never have.

Let's hope they never do.

the far right... which is most of the clown car... CAN'T win the presidency. con't you read? that's my point.

hint: richard nixon couldn't get past a GOP wacko primary now. that speaks volumes.

The clown car is filled with those who push extremes from both sides.

I can't understand the shift in the house and senate. As much as I've tried to understand it...it does not seem consistent.

And spare me the "low information voter" argument. Something happened which has turned off both sides. It seems one voted to do something about it and the other decided to do something about it by not voting.

Making statements about what CAN'T be done is meaningless.

Let's just hope that neither the far left nor the far right ever win the presidency.

 

[jillian]

The political left embraces the concept of diversity.

From the outset of the current administration the political right has engaged in a policy of adversity towards the agenda proposed by the president.

The demographics of this nation show a strong trend towards an even greater diversity.

So does it make sense to be adverse to policies that address this growing diversity?

Should the next leader of the free world be someone who embraces diversity?

Or should they continue to embrace adversity to diversity?

The question for this thread is which way should this nation go in the future?

Apart from avoiding ad homs there will be no other "special rules" since this is obviously going to get into areas where people have passionate feelings. Please feel free to express them openly and candidly. We the People need to have this debate so let's air our differences and see if there is any common ground in our positions.

Enjoy!

i suspect the far right will continue to lose the presidency unless they can embrace diversity. the only GOP candidate who seems to understand this (although I disagree with many things he stands for) is rand paul. now if he'd only learn not to melt down when he's asked questions.

Since when did the "far right" (whoever that is) win the presidency ?

They never have.

Let's hope they never do.

the far right... which is most of the clown car... CAN'T win the presidency. con't you read? that's my point.

hint: richard nixon couldn't get past a GOP wacko primary now. that speaks volumes.

The clown car is filled with those who push extremes from both sides.

I can't understand the shift in the house and senate. As much as I've tried to understand it...it does not seem consistent.

And spare me the "low information voter" argument. Something happened which has turned off both sides. It seems one voted to do something about it and the other decided to do something about it by not voting.

Making statements about what CAN'T be done is meaningless.

Let's just hope that neither the far left nor the far right ever win the presidency.

no one from the "far left" is running for president.

that can't be said for the right.

beyond that, i'm not sure what it is you're trying to say.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The political left embraces the concept of diversity.

From the outset of the current administration the political right has engaged in a policy of adversity towards the agenda proposed by the president.

The demographics of this nation show a strong trend towards an even greater diversity.

So does it make sense to be adverse to policies that address this growing diversity?

Should the next leader of the free world be someone who embraces diversity?

Or should they continue to embrace adversity to diversity?

The question for this thread is which way should this nation go in the future?

Apart from avoiding ad homs there will be no other "special rules" since this is obviously going to get into areas where people have passionate feelings. Please feel free to express them openly and candidly. We the People need to have this debate so let's air our differences and see if there is any common ground in our positions.

Enjoy!

i suspect the far right will continue to lose the presidency unless they can embrace diversity. the only GOP candidate who seems to understand this (although I disagree with many things he stands for) is rand paul. now if he'd only learn not to melt down when he's asked questions.

Since when did the "far right" (whoever that is) win the presidency ?

They never have.

Let's hope they never do.

the far right... which is most of the clown car... CAN'T win the presidency. con't you read? that's my point.

hint: richard nixon couldn't get past a GOP wacko primary now. that speaks volumes.

The clown car is filled with those who push extremes from both sides.

I can't understand the shift in the house and senate. As much as I've tried to understand it...it does not seem consistent.

And spare me the "low information voter" argument. Something happened which has turned off both sides. It seems one voted to do something about it and the other decided to do something about it by not voting.

Making statements about what CAN'T be done is meaningless.

Let's just hope that neither the far left nor the far right ever win the presidency.

no one from the "far left" is running for president.

that can't be said for the right.

beyond that, i'm not sure what it is you're trying to say.

I understand.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

This was an interesting article:

The Hispanic Vote What GOP Must Do

It agrees with the outcome described by the OP...but for more specific reasons.

Here is the final paragraph:

Republican activists should read "A Race for the Future," heed the author’s advice, and begin promoting the Texas approach in Hispanic communities throughout the nation. If they don’t, they will consign their party to the dust bin of history.

I don't know the author (or his leanings).

But, what I've contended is that GOP continually shoots itself in the foot and in the a$$ continually by having far right nutjobs spout off stuff that (I don't believe) the majority of the party embraces (could be wrong....I have no data...and I am stating that up front). In today's world...you simply can't afford to have loose cannons shooting off their ignorant mouths and it seems that the far right has a ship load of them.

What is confusing is that after this last election....THEY HAD MORE !!! What's going on ?

 

[Unkotare]

This is about nothing more than democrat doublespeak.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

This is about nothing more than democrat doublespeak.

I don't believe the OP is very well thought out, but it does hit at a fundamental issue.....

As for the OP.....

The political left embraces the concept of diversity.

[What does this mean ?]

From the outset of the current administration the political right has engaged in a policy of adversity towards the agenda proposed by the president.

[The political right was elected to take on Obama. Two years after a massive victory, the unthinkable happened...the GOP took back the house (the same one Chris Matthews said would be democratic for "at least ten years". Many of these victories were out and out repudiation of Obama. (and lest we forget..many were democratic because those were out and out repudiation of Bush....). The bottom line is that the political right was hired to take Obama on. Like it or not.]

The demographics of this nation show a strong trend towards an even greater diversity.

[If this means the population is getting more diverse..that is absolutely true.]

So does it make sense to be adverse to policies that address this growing diversity?

[This somehow equates Obama's policies to policies that address the growing diversity. That has not been established and is certainly up for debate. The question is based on unproven premises.]

Should the next leader of the free world be someone who embraces diversity?

[Meaning what ? How do you embrace diversity ? In the corporate world "diversity" is code word for let's not get sued for discrimination or racial harrasment.]

Or should they continue to embrace adversity to diversity?

[Adversity to diversity...just what does that mean ? Someone wants to force blacks onto birth control so their % of the population drops ?]

The question for this thread is which way should this nation go in the future?

Apart from avoiding ad homs there will be no other "special rules" since this is obviously going to get into areas where people have passionate feelings. Please feel free to express them openly and candidly. We the People need to have this debate so let's air our differences and see if there is any common ground in our positions.

Enjoy!

Having posted this....the general point is still something the GOP must face. If they continue to let morons in front of the camera, they will not win the minority vote. If their message is really the message of the morons...then they don't deserve it....or any other votes for that matter.

 

[Statistikhengst]

This is about nothing more than democrat doublespeak.

I don't believe the OP is very well thought out, but it does hit at a fundamental issue.....

As for the OP.....

The political left embraces the concept of diversity.

[What does this mean ?]

From the outset of the current administration the political right has engaged in a policy of adversity towards the agenda proposed by the president.

[The political right was elected to take on Obama. Two years after a massive victory, the unthinkable happened...the GOP took back the house (the same one Chris Matthews said would be democratic for "at least ten years". Many of these victories were out and out repudiation of Obama. (and lest we forget..many were democratic because those were out and out repudiation of Bush....). The bottom line is that the political right was hired to take Obama on. Like it or not.]

The demographics of this nation show a strong trend towards an even greater diversity.

[If this means the population is getting more diverse..that is absolutely true.]

So does it make sense to be adverse to policies that address this growing diversity?

[This somehow equates Obama's policies to policies that address the growing diversity. That has not been established and is certainly up for debate. The question is based on unproven premises.]

Should the next leader of the free world be someone who embraces diversity?

[Meaning what ? How do you embrace diversity ? In the corporate world "diversity" is code word for let's not get sued for discrimination or racial harrasment.]

Or should they continue to embrace adversity to diversity?

[Adversity to diversity...just what does that mean ? Someone wants to force blacks onto birth control so their % of the population drops ?]

The question for this thread is which way should this nation go in the future?

Apart from avoiding ad homs there will be no other "special rules" since this is obviously going to get into areas where people have passionate feelings. Please feel free to express them openly and candidly. We the People need to have this debate so let's air our differences and see if there is any common ground in our positions.

Enjoy!

Having posted this....the general point is still something the GOP must face. If they continue to let morons in front of the camera, they will not win the minority vote. If their message is really the message of the morons...then they don't deserve it....or any other votes for that matter.

Your last paragraph: spot on!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Derideo_Te]

I can't understand the shift in the house and senate. As much as I've tried to understand it...it does not seem consistent.

The House is the result of gerrymandering.

The Senate is the result of low voter turnout in 2014.

 

[Unkotare]

There is no one more militantly - and if need be, violently - insistent upon uniformity of thought and deed than a far left democrat. Diversity my ass.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

There is no one more militantly - and if need be, violently - insistent upon uniformity of thought and deed than a far left democrat. Diversity my ass.

It seems you won't find the left engaging in a very diverse conversation when it comes to abortion.

Can you provide other examples ?

 

[Derideo_Te]

There is no one more militantly - and if need be, violently - insistent upon uniformity of thought and deed than a far left democrat. Diversity my ass.

Same applies to someone from the extreme right.

Anyone on the extremes is likely to have rigid viewpoints.

But this isn't about the extremes. It is about the majority who are not on the extremes.