I've said elsewhere that this was probably the last election where the Republicans stood a real chance of gaining the American Presidency with a program that mainly appeals to prosperous suburban whites and holds little appeal to most women and almost no appeal at all to racial minorities.
If the GOP is to survive, what do you think it would have to look like? What could it possibly look like?
We've tried a few other multiculti politicians which have clearly been promoted too early.
You probably can't understand this, but in the US that would be thought of by many as a racist statement, given the context. It seems to imply that there aren't very many qualified nonwhite candidates, which begs the question: if things are so hunky-dory racially in Norway, why so few?
I think their track records speak for themselves, whether or not they'd be of color or female or handicapped or whichever minority group de jour is promoted, they royally fucked up the positions which they were granted. That's a far cry from saying that every member of a minority is unfit, it's merely evidence that we are so eager to promote minorities that due diligence seems to be disregarded in some cases. It should be noted that by law, 40% of board members of listed corporations need to be female.
Whenever a suitable candidate for power rises from the minorities, he or she will hopefully be elected upon their promotion of policies, not their minority membership. To that end, my party is now fielding a female candidate for PM which holds an overwhelming favorite choice going into our elections in a year. Before that my party fielded a gay minister of finance.
We've gotten a fairly long way here towards neutering nationalism and silencing discrimination to death, at least compared to where we started off (my grandfather's racism was quite expressed.) In many regards, much further than the US; who the candidate is just seems to matter less as opposed to what the candidate/party stands for.
We're more past racism than Europe is.
You're having a laugh! Please provide the citation on which you base this belief.
I cite my post. How close do you think the UK is to having an ethnic Pakistani as PM?
Probably somewhat later than the US has it's first female head of state...
Which could very easily be Hillary Clinton in 2016,.
I cite my post. Fine. That's so overwhelmingly empirical, it's unarguable.
My assertions are obviously just observations. There's nothing to cite. I referred to what I saw and heard four years ago from UK citizens.
So, you seem totally unwilling to even guess when the first Pakistani, Indian, or African ethnic will become Prime Minister. I'll take that as you're not being very optimistic.
One benchmark might involve putting together a comparison between racially-motivated hate crimes in the UK and USA. Obviously, it would have to be done on a per capita or per thousand basis to allow for the population difference.
I'm on my way out so I haven't checked yet, but at a glance the numbers seem comparable with the UK doing slightly better.
I find it interesting that many acts of violence arising from 'the troubles' in Northern Ireland are considered legally to be racial in nature under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
here Nobody is saying the UK is Utopia. But we are working towards increasing the diversity in our members of parliament. Here is a debate on the topic, which I found by googling "Europe vs USA racism"
However, if you refer back to my post, I was discussing the voting divide, inasmuch as is the consideration of the demographic difference in voting by ethical groups in the US covertly reinforcing the acceptability of these divisions. The demography of the voters, not of the politicians.
I tried to find the equivalent information for UK voters because I really wanted to know. I wanted to see if we discussed differences in ethnic groups as to voting trends. I wasn't searching for support for my pre-existing beliefs, I was genuinely pondering this concept, and whether it was part of the uniqueness of America or a more global syndrome.
I'm not calling you names, I'm trying to analyse facts.
I'm not sure what comparing hate crime statistic tells one since hate crimes can be driven by widespread attitudes or a very active hate-filled minority (such as the KKK in the US, which has such a small constituency it might be said to hardly exist at all, and yet those few could be responsible for a large proportion of hate crimes against blacks). In another society, where an ethnic minority is widely resented but with less intensity, one could get the same number of crimes out of a totally different population of potential offenders.
RE: "it's unarguable"
You might as well say, "It's Chinatown."