Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: Edward Brooke, First Black Elected U.S. Senator, Dies

  1. #11
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: R.I.P. mr. Senator

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    It's not an RIP thread. I mentioned what the man was about and how he couldn't be further from modern Republicans. Did Republicans suddenly start supporting abortion en masse? What about the government's role in education? Did the right wing suddenly decide they're no longer opposed to the DoE and federal education policies? He was far from the post-Reagan Republicans we have today. Hell, there are few relevant domestic policies in which he would have seen eye to eye with modern Republicans.
    Fair enough. One can honor someone's life and/or life accomplishments without walking in lockstep with his views and goals. There will be many who honor President Obama's achievement as the first black President and yet consider him a disaster in the role. Perhaps 50 years from now people will wonder why there hasn't been a second black President just as it's remarkable that 50 years later, only 9 blacks have been elected to the US Senate since Senator Brooke first took his seat there in 1967.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  2. #12
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,057

    Re: R.I.P. mr. Senator

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Fair enough. One can honor someone's life and/or life accomplishments without walking in lockstep with his views and goals. There will be many who honor President Obama's achievement as the first black President and yet consider him a disaster in the role. Perhaps 50 years from now people will wonder why there hasn't been a second black President just as it's remarkable that 50 years later, only 9 blacks have been elected to the US Senate since Senator Brooke first took his seat there in 1967.
    I find the above funny because Ben Carson, Republican, is being touted as the great black hope of Republicans. The right wing's answer to Obama. This phrasing of yours reveals the belief that even someone as educated as Carson has very little chance of being elected.

    I don't find it that remarkable that 50 years later only 9 blacks have been Senators. We've only had one Catholic president, one Irish-American president, we've only had seventeen women senators in 200+ years. The positions of powers in this country are still very much a white protestant male's area. The same group who made ascension to these positions easy for themselves still control many of the positions.

    That people believe these two things are 'coincidental' is pretty funny in the grand scope of thoughts. Downright dangerous when they believe it's just the luck of the white protestant male.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  3. #13
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: R.I.P. mr. Senator

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    I find the above funny because Ben Carson, Republican, is being touted as the great black hope of Republicans. The right wing's answer to Obama. This phrasing of yours reveals the belief that even someone as educated as Carson has very little chance of being elected.

    I don't find it that remarkable that 50 years later only 9 blacks have been Senators. We've only had one Catholic president, one Irish-American president, we've only had seventeen women senators in 200+ years. The positions of powers in this country are still very much a white protestant male's area. The same group who made ascension to these positions easy for themselves still control many of the positions.

    That people believe these two things are 'coincidental' is pretty funny in the grand scope of thoughts. Downright dangerous when they believe it's just the luck of the white protestant male.
    There's nothing funny about my "phrasing". It reflects my belief that there won't be another black President in America for a very long time after Obama. Had Obama been a successful President, my opinion would have changed, but I think Obama has made it very difficult for those who follow him. Similarly, I thought Geraldine Ferraro was a real setback for women on the Presidential ticket going forward and Sarah Palin has compounded that problem. It's what happens when tokens are chosen to suit an agenda rather than strong candidates in their own right, regardless of gender or race.

    9 black Senators over almost 50 years is remarkable to me. There are many areas of America that send black representatives to the House. It leads me to believe that there aren't many blacks who aspire to the Senate, but I have no factual basis to support that assumption. There are 200 Senators elected every 12 years so potentially 800 Senate positions in that time and only 9 elected - by contrast, in those same years, only 12 potential Presidential runs so your analogy is far off.

    With about 17% of the American population being black and almost 95% of them consistently voting Democrat, it's inconceivable to me that so few black Democrats run for the Senate let alone Republicans. Carson would appear to be an oddity in that regard, thus he seems remarkable - but the Democrat side is far more telling, in my view.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  4. #14
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,057

    Re: R.I.P. mr. Senator

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    There's nothing funny about my "phrasing". It reflects my belief that there won't be another black President in America for a very long time after Obama. Had Obama been a successful President, my opinion would have changed, but I think Obama has made it very difficult for those who follow him. Similarly, I thought Geraldine Ferraro was a real setback for women on the Presidential ticket going forward and Sarah Palin has compounded that problem. It's what happens when tokens are chosen to suit an agenda rather than strong candidates in their own right, regardless of gender or race.
    So... Obama made it difficult... for other people who are unrelated to him to be elected? Because... he's black... and they're black too and all blacks will be looked as the same? Lol. I don't really understand what you're saying. Are you saying that if the right doesn't manage to elect a reasonably qualified black candidate, it'll be because he's black like Obama?

    9 black Senators over almost 50 years is remarkable to me. There are many areas of America that send black representatives to the House. It leads me to believe that there aren't many blacks who aspire to the Senate, but I have no factual basis to support that assumption. There are 200 Senators elected every 12 years so potentially 800 Senate positions in that time and only 9 elected - by contrast, in those same years, only 12 potential Presidential runs so your analogy is far off.

    With about 17% of the American population being black and almost 95% of them consistently voting Democrat, it's inconceivable to me that so few black Democrats run for the Senate let alone Republicans. Carson would appear to be an oddity in that regard, thus he seems remarkable - but the Democrat side is far more telling, in my view.
    There are many weird leaps of faiths, simply false statements and red herrings I don't know where to start. At the beginning, I guess. There are 200 elected senators every 12 years of so, and so what? It costs a ****load of money and resources to actually mount a senatorial campaign. Money and resources which up until recently weren't actually available to most of the black population for a number of reasons. Secondly, incumbents usually manage to retain their offices the higher up you go so while 200 senate seats may be up for grabs, a small fraction of these will actually go to new people. Democrats are particularly guilty of this with some senators holding on to their seats for well over 30 years.

    As far as the numbers in your second paragraph go. Blacks are 17%.... in what census? Lol, the 2050 census? Or the 1810 census? Blacks haven't made up anywhere near 17% of the US population in like .... 200 years. With that said, we're hardly majorities in any state. At best, you have states like Mississippi and Louisiana, where blacks make up ~35% of the population. However, those states are primarily Republican strongholds so there is little chance of a Democrat - of any color - being elected in any of those states.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  5. #15
    Sage
    Paperview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    The Road Less Travelled
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:12 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,450

    Re: R.I.P. mr. Senator

    Fun fact: The total number of African Americans elected to Congress: 130.

    Since 1900, only five were Republican.

    Up until today! With the seating of the 114th Congress, the GOP can now boast of having elected a grand total of eight African Americans to Congress since 1900.


    Yay!!!

    Electing them to positions of POWER in numbers -- Now you're catching on, Grand Old Partiers!

  6. #16
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: R.I.P. mr. Senator

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    So... Obama made it difficult... for other people who are unrelated to him to be elected? Because... he's black... and they're black too and all blacks will be looked as the same? Lol. I don't really understand what you're saying. Are you saying that if the right doesn't manage to elect a reasonably qualified black candidate, it'll be because he's black like Obama?



    There are many weird leaps of faiths, simply false statements and red herrings I don't know where to start. At the beginning, I guess. There are 200 elected senators every 12 years of so, and so what? It costs a ****load of money and resources to actually mount a senatorial campaign. Money and resources which up until recently weren't actually available to most of the black population for a number of reasons. Secondly, incumbents usually manage to retain their offices the higher up you go so while 200 senate seats may be up for grabs, a small fraction of these will actually go to new people. Democrats are particularly guilty of this with some senators holding on to their seats for well over 30 years.

    As far as the numbers in your second paragraph go. Blacks are 17%.... in what census? Lol, the 2050 census? Or the 1810 census? Blacks haven't made up anywhere near 17% of the US population in like .... 200 years. With that said, we're hardly majorities in any state. At best, you have states like Mississippi and Louisiana, where blacks make up ~35% of the population. However, those states are primarily Republican strongholds so there is little chance of a Democrat - of any color - being elected in any of those states.
    My apologies - I mixed up the Latino vote with the Black vote - blacks make up about 13% of the electorate. That doesn't change my point that there are several States that are overwhelmingly Democrat in voting terms such as California, New York, Massachusetts, with very rich local, state and national Democrat parties and they can't find any competent blacks to promote and elect to the Senate? Was Barack Obama wealthy with a ****load of money to make his run? So why aren't the Democrats, the party that claims to be the only party that supports black Americans, more inclined to elect black Americans to the US Senate? Is it because blacks aren't interested in the position or because Democrats aren't interest in them as candidates, just as voting fodder?
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  7. #17
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,057

    Re: R.I.P. mr. Senator

    Quote Originally Posted by Paperview View Post
    Fun fact: The total number of African Americans elected to Congress: 130.

    Since 1900, only five were Republican.

    Up until today! With the seating of the 114th Congress, the GOP can now boast of having elected a grand total of eight African Americans to Congress since 1900.


    Yay!!!

    Electing them to positions of POWER in numbers -- Now you're catching on, Grand Old Partiers!
    When black people started doing the same thing the Italians and Irish have, it became an issue. Suddenly, black people have become racist for choosing people who were more likely to share a cultural background with us. Some whites find it unacceptable that blacks engage in identity politics like whites and their ancestors have for centuries. It's now racist to elect a politician because of a shared ancestry. However, this has only been an issue for the past 8 years or so.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  8. #18
    Sage
    countryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    17,705

    Re: R.I.P. mr. Senator

    Quote Originally Posted by Paperview View Post
    Fun fact: The total number of African Americans elected to Congress: 130.

    Since 1900, only five were Republican.

    Up until today! With the seating of the 114th Congress, the GOP can now boast of having elected a grand total of eight African Americans to Congress since 1900.


    Yay!!!

    Electing them to positions of POWER in numbers -- Now you're catching on, Grand Old Partiers!
    Yeah, for that to have any merit whatsoever, wouldn't we need to know the number of blacks who have run as republicans? Furthermore, why is that so astonishing when you consider that very few blacks even identify as republicans?

  9. #19
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,057

    Re: R.I.P. mr. Senator

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    My apologies
    Don't apologise. You can start by telling everyone why Republicans wouldn't elect a black man after Barack Obama. What stops them? What association could they possibly make between Obama and another black man? That they wouldn't have made before? Did Obama make it impossible for another black guy to gather the votes from the right?

    I mixed up the Latino vote with the Black vote - blacks make up about 13% of the electorate. That doesn't change my point that there are several States that are overwhelmingly Democrat in voting terms such as California, New York, Massachusetts, with very rich local, state and national Democrat parties and they can't find any competent blacks to promote and elect to the Senate?
    It's almost like you aren't reading my posts because you really don't know what you're talking about. It's not as easy as simply finding a black senator or a female senator. It also involves incumbents and general political pragmatism. Why would Democrats find a new black candidate to run against Boxer and Feinstein when they've proven they can win elections for 20+ years? Then there is Massachusetts, where blacks make up 6% of the population, and there has never been an elected black Senator or Representative. A state where John Kerry held his office for 20+ years, and then appointed a black man. A state where Kennedy held it for 40 years and ran mostly unopposed. New York hasn't had any black senators, true, and yet it has had dozens of black representatives. In contrast New Jersey with only 13% of blacks, a black man is currently senator. Again, it's far more complex than saying "find a black dude and get him elected". A party isn't going to leave a senator elected for 20+ years to go find a black man to elect. A party also isn't going to pour millions of dollars on a long shot when it could just back the incumbent. Doing so would actually be playing the token game.

    Was Barack Obama wealthy with a ****load of money to make his run?
    Who said a candidate needed to be wealthy? I said it needed to have a ****load of money. That really is a fact. Hell, let's actually see how much of a fact that is using your example (Obama):

    United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Democratic primary election, including seven candidates who combined to spend over $46 million, was the most expensive U.S. Senate primary election in history.
    Then, in the actual race, Obama won against a carpetbagger - Alan Keyes, terrible fella - who was pretty much picked because Republicans had nobody to run against Obama. So, in short Obama's election as Senator can be mostly attributed to the terrible **** up that were the 2004 Illinois Republicans, him spending his way to winning the primary and the fact that he ran a campaign against a guy who was literally flown in last minute. The rest, as we know it, is history.

    So why aren't the Democrats, the party that claims to be the only party that supports black Americans, more inclined to elect black Americans to the US Senate? Is it because blacks aren't interested in the position or because Democrats aren't interest in them as candidates, just as voting fodder?
    What a false dichotomy. Lol, Democrats have elected the overwhelming majority of the black politicians in Congress for the past 100 years. That you're trying to make it seem as if their lack of Senators make Democrats uninterested in black candidates is pretty laughable and ignorant of actual American politics. What is more telling is that you've avoided the fact that Republicans are pretty much irrelevant when it comes to finding electable minorities in general. Why is that?
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  10. #20
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,057

    Re: R.I.P. mr. Senator

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    Yeah, for that to have any merit whatsoever, wouldn't we need to know the number of blacks who have run as republicans? Furthermore, why is that so astonishing when you consider that very few blacks even identify as republicans?
    So... Whites Republicans won't vote for Black Republicans?
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •