Forums | MacLife

Tallgeese wrote:

Then why are you bringing up the minority Republicans in positions of power?

Because I know many are.
I'm not willfully ignorant.

Yes you are, but that's neither here nor there.

The point is that you think we shouldn't bring up how pasty the Republican Congressional body is, but you need to bring up that it isn't. Either it's important or it's not.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

The vast majority of Republicans everywhere, in Washington, in state capitals, in counties, in cities and towns, are white.

The Republican Party is the party of whites.

I take it we're agreed on this?

You have it mixed up - the vast majority of non-whites are not Republicans.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

By your standards, we can now fairly say the Republican Party is the Party of Whites.

No - the majority of white politicians on capitol hill are Democrat right now.

The vast majority of Republicans everywhere, in Washington, in state capitals, in counties, in cities and towns, are white.

The Republican Party is the party of whites.

I take it we're agreed on this?

No, because there are at least four non-whites in the party.

Lew wrote:

resedit wrote:

Just saw a list of the wealthiest politicians on Capitol Hill on TV.

Four of them are Democrats.

Four out of how many?

Here's a list from 2008.

Lots of republicans, lots of democrats, all of them loaded (it also notes that their disclosure forms are notoriously inaccurate).

I've personally never heard anyone claim that there weren't plenty of extremely rich Democrats in Washington.  National politicians as a class are often wealthy.

Last edited by bratboy (2009-09-14 4:40 pm)

The funny thing about the richest on the list, John Kerry, is that it all comes from his wife.  And where did the wife get all of that?  Billionaire Republican US Sen. Henry John Heinz III.

Like Gore Vidal once stated so well: There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt—until recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.

resedit wrote:

Yes, and they are often out of touch.

You often chant this mantra, but what do you mean by it?  They aren't hep to the latest pop bands?

Metacell wrote:

resedit wrote:

Yes, and they are often out of touch.

You often chant this mantra, but what do you mean by it?  They aren't hep to the latest pop bands?

As has been pointed out in this thread, many modern politicians are simply independantly wealthy individuals with extra time on their hands.  What's more is that they intend to keep it that way.  Of course, I cannot prove this, but I would dare to say that there isn't such a thing as a modern politician who made his way into federal office through pure public appeal and not through a well-financed campaign.  If I am wrong on this point, then I should hold that exception in the highest regard.

The fact is that politicians, once elected, are free to act without the support of their constituency, and most constituents are not keen enough to go through the process of having that politician removed from office.  The politician in question only has to address enough of the popular agenda to receive a moderately high opinion rating so that they will achieve re-election.  They are interested simply in being politicians, which is shown session after session with continued unrelated earmarks and self-approved raises.  This, however, has become the status quo in Washington, and I don't see any civil way to correct that.

I once sent my senator, Jim DeMint (R, SC), a letter describing my position on homosexual marriage and pleaded him to see reason in that the government should not federally limit a person's ability to marry another person on the basis of gender.  What I received in return was a form letter that simply described the resolution I had addressed and how Mr. DeMint had decided to vote, which was actually contrary to my original plea.

This is how politicians operate.  Unless you convene a massive amount of people in a fashion that rates media coverage, or unless you yourself are a politician, your voice does not get heard.

This is all my opinion, naturally.

DevoDoc wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

No - the majority of white politicians on capitol hill are Democrat right now.

The vast majority of Republicans everywhere, in Washington, in state capitals, in counties, in cities and towns, are white.

The Republican Party is the party of whites.

I take it we're agreed on this?

No, because there are at least four non-whites in the party.