Can a White, Male (D) ever win again?

[lacuna]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

It's amazing how some from the left never admit when they are wrong and just haul arse out of a thread. The new standard is to wipe any heritage from someone in the republican party and label them as white. Lacuna posts is picture and said that is a white man.

The census form I linked earlier stated people who had ancestry from Europe are "white." Let's not confuse the issue with Obama. The census form states the respondent is to mark X for "one or more" races that the respondent "considers him/herself to be." There is no box for "Latino" or "Hispanic."

The form states what I quoted earlier in this thread. People with ancestry from Europe are considered "white." Rubio's ancestors hailed from Spain before sailing to America unknown years ago. If you are so sure Rubio is not 'white', why don't you see if you can find out how he filled out this section on his census form to see what group he self identifies with.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by lacuna

The census form I linked earlier stated people who had ancestry from Europe are "white." Let's not confuse the issue with Obama. The census form states the respondent is to mark X for "one or more" races that the respondent "considers him/herself to be." There is no box for "Latino" or "Hispanic."

The form states what I quoted earlier in this thread. People with ancestry from Europe are considered "white." Rubio's ancestors hailed from Spain before sailing to America unknown years ago. If you are so sure Rubio is not 'white', why don't you see if you can find out how he filled out this section on his census form to see what group he self identifies with.

I never said a word about Obama so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. I can't tell you how many people I know from and currently living in Latin America, my family included and not one of them considers themselves white/Caucasian. I get what you are saying, but why is come election time they are no longer identified as white?

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

A better question would be how can a GOP candidate win the WH again when they are seen as the party of intolerance and only out for the rich?

The GOP plan seems to be to pedal the same gobbledygook a little softer and from different messengers. This is unlikely to be successful.

They can win on the condition that the people ignorant enough to think of them as those two things have to grow up someday.

Thing is, I think even the most arch social conservative is more 'tolerant' than the most mild coffeehouse liberal grad student, in every way. The conservative, she may grimace or frown, but she will invariably suffer the pluralist reality of the society she lives with -- she will tolerate it. Coffeehouse lefty guy, he will have to nerdrage and boycott and whimper about everything that doesn't adhere to what his ideals demand, tolerating nothing.

Tolerance, they keep using that word. I don't think it means what they think it means.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Yes. Hispanic is not a race, its an ethnicity.

And even that's a reach. Safe to say "Hispanic" incorporates every race in the book actually. There isn't even a common culture. I guess, being "hispanic" means you come from a country that Spain once conquered. But it sure does make the PC police happy when they can put everything in it's own, neat little box, doesn't it?

That said, are Brazilians hispanic?


As for Rubio being a white guy, depends on who you ask. To Mexican's, yes. To Puerto Ricans, maybe. Not sure whether Cubans consider themselves white or not. Probably depends on the time of their flight (the earlier ones are clearly "whiter" than the latter arrivals).

[MichiGator2002]

Maybe Rubio is one those "white Hispanics" the race pumps invented.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by JerseyGator01

The Dem Party in reality has such a small tent of ideas that any white puppet could win with just half the media brainwashing that Obama needed for a former community organizer to win. The Pubs don't win lately because they have much more diversity of thought in the party which often results in a weaker primary candidate (either a blueblood like Romney or a social conservative) getting the nomination. This happens quite frequently in Congress too.

Seriously, the bigger government party doesn't have any serious outspoken factions with anything beyond astroturf (i.e. no real grassroots - see the now defunct OWS).

Look at the US Senate. How many black Dems are in the US Senate? Zero last I checked.

Not true. See 2000. Granted, it's just my opinion, but I cannot see a white guy winning with Obama's message. Imagine some of those words coming from the mouth of a gray-haired white man. You think they resonate the same with those whom it resonated the most? I don't.

If Obama was white, we wouldn't even know his name right now. That's how irrelevant he would be. Again, IMO.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

I'm just trying to get the definition of "White" as put forth by the OP. Is it a WASP or just a person who is not Latino, Asian, African or other origin?

Not black, female or non-Cuban (Castillian) Hispanic/Latino/Whatever.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

It can be. George Zimmerman and Marco Rubio are white. Sammy Sosa and Al Horford are black. All are Hispanic/Latino, which is an ethnicity, not a race. Now, I doubt any of those people would identify as "white" or "black" primarily, because they have other associations here, where White=Anglo/European, Black = African American.

You do realize how silly this sounds, right? And, being a history major, you are aware that "race" as we like to define it, fluid and is always changing? So, why all this fuss from the left to catagorize? What's the benefit outside of allowing liberals to feel better about themselves in a bizarre, convoluted way?

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Your confused, his bloodlines are from Latin America

BUZZZ! Wrong. His bloodlines are clearly from Spain, which is in Europe last time I checked.

So, yes, by PC definition, he is "hispanic" as all Spaniards are. Then again, Italians (especially those south of Tuscany) are pretty much racially identical to Spaniards, yet one is causasian and the other is "hispanic/latino/whatever."

[lacuna]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

I never said a word about Obama so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. I can't tell you how many people I know from and currently living in Latin America, my family included and not one of them considers themselves white/Caucasian. I get what you are saying, but why is come election time they are no longer identified as white?

In the thread I quoted you responded to a comment about Obama.

http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas...4&postcount=58

I can't tell you why your friends or family don't consider themselves "white." Are any of them of mixed ancestry with branches from Africa or native to South America? If they are 100% European ancestry then under the census guidelines they are considered to be "white."

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Nice stretch but his ancestors are from Latin America and we don't consider that white

Not your fault. The whole concept of PC Classification is inherently idiotic. You're just now stumbling into one of the many reason's why.

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

They can win on the condition that the people ignorant enough to think of them as those two things have to grow up someday.

Thing is, I think even the most arch social conservative is more 'tolerant' than the most mild coffeehouse liberal grad student, in every way. The conservative, she may grimace or frown, but she will invariably suffer the pluralist reality of the society she lives with -- she will tolerate it. Coffeehouse lefty guy, he will have to nerdrage and boycott and whimper about everything that doesn't adhere to what his ideals demand, tolerating nothing.

Tolerance, they keep using that word. I don't think it means what they think it means.

Please. It's all that many of those righties you are describing can do to not utter a certain famous word when the topic of the current POTUS comes up.

Gimme a break.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

A better question would be how can a GOP candidate win the WH again when they are seen as the party of intolerance and only out for the rich?

The GOP plan seems to be to pedal the same gobbledygook a little softer and from different messengers. This is unlikely to be successful.

Come on man, got something better than this weak-arsed softball crap. Jesus, at the very least, bring the speed up to BP level on those softballs.

Answer: Hubris. It's why your guy is now in office and why your guys will be out in 3+ years.

[HALLGATOR]

Seems to me then that the question could be asked of both parties since winning the party nomination is only part of the battle. McCain chose a woman and Rubio, whatever anyone calls him, is not the run-of-the-mill White guy as some see it.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

Seems to me then that the question could be asked of both parties since winning the party nomination is only part of the battle. McCain chose a woman and Rubio, whatever anyone calls him, is not the run-of-the-mill White guy as some see it.

Very true. Though I'm not sure the (R)s, given that their base is solidly white, are at as much of a disadvantage. The (D)s I'm not so sure of. Again, white guys with hard-left policies have not fared well historically.

Will blacks be as motivated with a white guy running? I think not.

Will non-Cuban hispanics/latino/whatever's connect with a white (D) candidate they way they did with Obama, or do the numbers slip back to 2000/2004 levels? I think so.

As for who will win the "hispanic" vote. Well, if I was planning the strategy, I would use Rubio to divide and conquer that demographic, pitting mexicans against "the rest" of the "hispanic/latino/whatever's."

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

You do realize how silly this sounds, right? And, being a history major, you are aware that "race" as we like to define it, fluid and is always changing? So, why all this fuss from the left to catagorize? What's the benefit outside of allowing liberals to feel better about themselves in a bizarre, convoluted way?

Sure, race is a somewhat arbitrary concept that people created long ago. It's human nature to classify and categorize, and there are always outliers and grey areas that put those concepts to the test as far as their validity or efficacy. As far as 21st century liberals go, they are primarily interested in intitutional & social problems relating to the legacies of legal classifications and concepts relating to race not of their own devising. Categorization doesnt have to be inherently "bad," and it can be useful, which is why people did it in the first place.

[lacuna]

http://www.buildupzion.org/articles/...sephardic-jews

The year 1492 is known for the discovery of the New World. However another historical event of equal significance also happened during this period. The anti-Semitic act of the Catholic Spanish Monarchy of Ferdinand and Isabella, or as more commonly known, the Spanish Inquisition, occurred during this time. This act had as its end result the expulsion from Spain of all non converted Jews.

With the establishment of the Edict of Expulsion of 14921, the Sephardic, or Spanish Jews, (the term Sephardic has its roots in the Hebrew term for the Iberian Peninsula, Sefarad) found themselves facing the dilemma of whether or not to remain in Spain. To remain in Spain meant the Jew would have to deny his beliefs and traditions, convert to Christianity and submit to the supervision of the Spanish Monarchy, to do otherwise would result in torture and possibly death. His only remaining option was to leave his home with only those few personal belongings he could carry. The Edict of Expulsion carried with it the appropriation and seizure by the monarchy of all earthly properties belonging to the Jew. The ideals for which so many Jews fought, the idea of a different Spain, one with greater honesty, integrity, well being for all, coexistence, freedom and tolerance were crushed in the rabid desire to be rid of the Jews.

The process of religious and state persecution of the Jews, the Spanish final solution to the Jewish “problem” was selective, massive and consistently repetitive. Those that finally managed to leave Spain were sheltered by countries such as Portugal, Morocco and Turkey. However, the Portuguese crown soon followed the Spanish example and launched its own decree “baptism or expulsion”, forcing the persecution of non-converting Jews. The Spanish-Portuguese Jew found himself wandering once more. Fleeing Jews initially found refuge in Turkey and North Africa and then the rest of Europe.

While expulsion was taking place the expansion and colonization of the New World was also occurring. Some Sephardic Jews took advantage of this and tried to escape the horrors of the Inquisition by fleeing to the coasts of the American continent. Many of those who embarked with Christopher Columbus on his voyages were really Jewish “marranos”, (a Spanish derogatory term literally translated pigs), who took the opportunity to leave Spain. With great pride and fanfare the Spanish Catholic religious authority described the new Jewish converts as “marranos” effectively classifying their newly converted “Christian brothers” as pigs. Thus the true anti-Semitic sentiment of the institutionalized universal church was evident. This abjectly obscene manner of treating the Jews is still evident in today’s church. It is inexplicable and indignant to witness the vain and presumptuous behavior of the Spanish Church. More terrible still is the manner in which Sephardic Jews found themselves dispersed, wandering to the remotest parts of the planet only to have the horrors of the Spanish Holy Inquisition2 visited upon them again and again. All this serves as evidence of the corruption and aberrant behavior of the institutional church. From the 15th century on the Inquisition maintained its power, pursuing “crypto-Jews” around the world. It wasn’t until the 19th century that it officially closed following the papal decree of July 15 1834.

3.Some common Sephardic last names are: Arevalo, Alcazar, Ayala, Ballestero, Becerra, Buendia, Bueno, Diaz, Espina, Franco, Falcon, Flores, Fuentes, Garcia, Gato, Gomez, Granado, Guzman, Gonzales, Jimenez, Luna, Levi, Lopez, Leon, Medina, Meza, Montiel, Morales, Naranjo, Navarro, Pardo, Paredes, Pulgar, Quemada, Rubio, Ramirez, Rangel, Rodriguez, Sevilla, Sevillano, Soto, Silvera, Toledo, Torre, Toro, Talavera, Uria, Vargas, Vasquez, Vidal, Villareal y Yepez although the list is not exhaustive.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by lacuna

In the thread I quoted you responded to a comment about Obama.

http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas...4&postcount=58

I can't tell you why your friends or family don't consider themselves "white." Are any of them of mixed ancestry with branches from Africa or native to South America? If they are 100% European ancestry then under the census guidelines they are considered to be "white."

It doesn't matter how the U.S. crafted the census and I doubt you can explain their reasons for how they decided to manipulate their data. Don't they have a choice for other race? Yeah, 18 million Hispanics picked “some other race”. How the heck can you be a minority and white at the same time? Whether its Central America or South America people don't identify with being White/Caucasian. The U.S. government has been very inconsistent on this to say the least and when it suits their purposes they are singled out as a non-white group.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Sure, race is a somewhat arbitrary concept that people created long ago. It's human nature to classify and categorize, and there are always outliers and grey areas that put those concepts to the test as far as their validity or efficacy. As far as 21st century liberals go, they are primarily interested in intitutional & social problems relating to the legacies of legal classifications and concepts relating to race not of their own devising. Categorization doesnt have to be inherently "bad," and it can be useful, which is why people did it in the first place.

Well, from my studies, I've come to the conclusion that race is utterly arbitrary and the "hispanic" label is chock full of "outliers and grey areas." Hell the whole thing is one giant Gray Area.

Again. What about Brazilians? What about Philipinos? What about Peruvians, Chilians and Columbians and all that asian influence?

As for your last point, where is the usefullness? IMO, and despite the intentions of its inventors, this aspect of PC just divides us further. Which, IMO, is the point at this point in the game. The bottom line on all the issues in question is class, not race or ethnicity. The latter is just a tool of the political types, IMO, to keep us divided.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

Well, from my studies, I've come to the conclusion that race is utterly arbitrary and the "hispanic" label is chock full of "outliers and grey areas." Hell the whole thing is one giant Gray Area.

Again. What about Brazilians? What about Philipinos? What about Peruvians, Chilians and Columbians and all that asian influence?

As for your last point, where is the usefullness? IMO, and despite the intentions of its inventors, this aspect of PC just divides us further. Which, IMO, is the point at this point in the game. The bottom line on all the issues in question is class, not race or ethnicity. The latter is just a tool of the political types, IMO, to keep us divided.

If people didn't divide themselves naturally, then these concepts would have no application, nor would anyone give them name. Thats why I said "somewhat" arbitrary, because they werent exactly pulled out of thin air. Besides, these arent universal concepts by any means. "White" is different in Brazil. Indeed, back in the day they had all sorts of catigorizations and names for degrees of African ancestry or mixed lineages that mostly didnt matter in America, where almost any black blood made you black, unless you could "pass" for white.

Also, you bring up class, which is itself a categorization based on certain observable criteria.