- Thread starter
- #41
The ridiculousness of your reasoning aside, this still has nothing to do with affirmative action. Do you even know what affirmative action is?
Just take the Democratic primary, race and gender. Where they trying to make an historic outcome by electing the first half-race or different gender president? Was Hillary trying to be the first different gender president or Obama the first half-race president? Affirmative action promotes access to education or employment. In this case, employment to the highest seat of government. Do you doubt that some people will elect Obama based on skin color or Hillary based on gender bias? There are people out there that do. So it is advantageous for them to say "i'm a women, i'm black." Look at the GOP, they have Sarah Palin as a VP nominee. Why? Because they want to make history. They want some history in this affirmative-action type election.
I am using a connotation of affirmative action. Affirmative action describing this election (gender or race and what it means to this country) has a different association than affirmative action describing policies promoting hiring/selecting of gender/race. To me, it feels like it.
Imagine if Oprah ran, she could actually beat both those barriers being that she's a black women who actually built her wealth.
Last edited: