You think the Senate is better depending on what color/gender the senators are?
I think who is put forward as a leader and who we vote for is an indication of who the majority of us consider to be "leaders." The rule makers. The ones who are in charge.
I think more diversity would be helpful. Minorities bring a different perspective to policy making that a bunch of white guys might not have thought of. Of course, having more women as senators is awesome because women as a rule have a lot of sense.
Minorities bring a different perspective? Are you saying it is OK, then, to make assumptions about people's views based on their race?
You are trying to make it impossible to have a discussion about this by posing questions that do nothing but shut down other people's views.
Another way to look at that is that I exposed a flaw in your presuppositions. Which is a great benefit to you. As you know, the argument that "diversity" is good because it "brings different perspectives" is everywhere. It governs corporate America, the government, academia, and so much else. Not only is it just plain wrong (making it a bad predicate for public policy), but it is exceedingly dangerous. So, of course, I am going to object when I see it on this board. If a question feels like it "shuts down debate" that just means you don't have an answer for it, to illuminate which I posed the question in the first place.
Why is it just plain wrong?
The cult of diversity makes race the sledgehammer arbiter of all morality. It amplifies race's already lethal capacity for mass violence.
Societies are stronger and more stable the more homogeneous they are. Homogeneous societies debate issues like whether to mandate maternity leave and so on. The more diverse a society becomes, the more its public debate becomes about that diversity, i.e., race, and it soon turns into a Kenya-style spoils democracy.
"Racism" wasn't even a thing in the United States until after World War II when some of the Jews to whom we'd given refuge began to teach us all about it. In actuality, it's an empty word to describe an empty philosophy. Since a race is just a really large family, to call someone a "racist" is to call someone a "familyist". The proper response if someone calls you a familyist is: huh? um, so? That's also the proper response if someone calls you a racist.
Some rabbi introduced the "racism" demon into Russia about a hundred years before Jews introduced the idea here. In Russia, the philosophy of racism followed the similar path that it is taking here culminating in the Jewish Bolshevik Revolution, which occurred one hundred years ago next month, lasted two generations and cost 66 million white Christian Russians their lives. It destroyed Russia, and high IQ Russians and many of their children were specifically mass murdered.
The "diversity is our strength" lie is just Jewish propaganda pimped by Jewish organs like the Washington Post and New York Times, among many others. It's a chant to hypnotize gullible white Christians into willingly put their own necks in a noose. Diversity, if left unchecked, will eventually lead to our extermination. Count on it.
All the Jews on this board and their dupes spit venom at me constantly for writing these things. But they can never refute me, because I am saying the truth. All they can do is snarl "Nazi!" Jew-hater! and shit like that. That works for most white Americans--they collapse into a quivering puddle of obsequious denials if a Jew calls them an "anti-Semite", whatever that is. I didn't get that gene. Being called a Nazi by a Jew is like being called a fox by a chicken. I will continue saying what I believe to be the truth, no matter what.