MSNBC panelists make fun of Romney's black grandchild (1 Viewer)

[Fennis]

I agree with NCC that this is following Fox shtick.

Not that Fox has done exactly the same thing towards children, but the general shtick of poking fun at the other side when something appears to be amiss with their accepted image with the public. Like when Obama prays in church or some ultra-liberal congressperson salutes the flag.

I'm not sure this is "Fox Shtick" or "MSNBC Shtick". This is "moron shtick" IMO and both channels have plenty of morons.

That's true, but in the cable news business Fox is the ratings leader so they set the tone. These networks are driven by ratings and money, and are constantly walking a line they sometimes cross.

I'd go as far to say it's a psychological reaction to what they created. The media likes to narrowly define guys like Romney and Obama because their audience loves to be lazy and think of them that way. That equals ratings. When their narrative goes astray all they can do is make fun of it.

The left-wing media perspective is - oh look, Romney has an adopted black kid. It's so different than the exaggerated out of touch rich white guy image we created. I believe there is some truth to that, and it was enough for me not to want him as POTUS, but to think he's a guy who would never adopt a black child is ridiculous. The right-wing media does the same thing with Obama. It's pathetic.

Both of these men are far more complex than their political image. Isn't it funny how we always discover later that former presidents are not exactly the person we thought they were in office?

OTOH, Mitt Romney didn't adopt a black child.

I guess I should have added "in his family" for you

apology accepted.

 

[fatness]

She let her hate-filled political ramblings interferre with good judgement.

 

[Jewell]

he's not simply pointing out that the GOP isn't racially diverse, he's implying that the reason for this lack of diversity is racism.

No he isn't.

But even if he is making that implication, you should be allowed to make that implication without fear of losing your job. We shouldn't effectively take certain implications off the table just because some people find them offensive. Hell, loads of people agree with guy regarding the GOP's lack of diversity. I don't, but others do.

 

[Jewell]

he's not simply pointing out that the GOP isn't racially diverse, he's implying that the reason for this lack of diversity is racism. That's the implication that MSNBC should not tolerate.

That implication is MSNBC, or at least a preeminent overriding theme at MSNBC. You're asking MSNBC officials to not tolerate an implication they promote. It would be like demanding that Chip Kelly not tolerate a fast paced offense.I also find it ironic that you want this guy fired for making the exact same implication regarding the GOP's lack of diversity that you've made a thousand times regarding the Tea Party's lack of diversity. If you wanted to remain consistent you'd give yourself a self-imposed timeout from the FFA.

I think you're confusing me with somebody else. Though I have taken great pains to criticize the Tea Party, it has been almost 100% aimed at their political opinions and votes. I have defended the membership of the Tea Party from charges of racism, and I don't recall discussing their lack of diversity.

Apologies then.

 

[tommyGunZ]

he's not simply pointing out that the GOP isn't racially diverse, he's implying that the reason for this lack of diversity is racism.

No he isn't.

But even if he is making that implication, you should be allowed to make that implication without fear of losing your job. We shouldn't effectively take certain implications off the table just because some people find them offensive. Hell, loads of people agree with guy regarding the GOP's lack of diversity. I don't, but others do.

You don't think the GOP lacks diversity, both in their leadership (elected officials) and constituency?

 

[jon_mx]

he's not simply pointing out that the GOP isn't racially diverse, he's implying that the reason for this lack of diversity is racism.

No he isn't.

But even if he is making that implication, you should be allowed to make that implication without fear of losing your job. We shouldn't effectively take certain implications off the table just because some people find them offensive. Hell, loads of people agree with guy regarding the GOP's lack of diversity. I don't, but others do.

You don't think the GOP lacks diversity, both in their leadership (elected officials) and constituency?

Considering the racial makeup of each political party, minorities are probably much more under represented in the Democratic Party leadership than the GOP. The only reason the Dems have more minorities in their constituency is that they pander to the poor. It has nothing to do with their love of diversity or lack of racism, for which the history suggest they are the party of racism.

 

[Clifford]

Melissa Harris-Perry apologized Tuesday for a controversial segment on her show about Mitt Romney's adopted grandson, Kieran, who is black.

The MSNBC host came under fire after joking about a photo of the Romney family that showed Romney holding his newest grandson on his knee. During her show Sunday, Harris-Perry had shown the photo and asked her panel for caption ideas. The roundtable joked about the baby being the only black person in the picture.

Harris-Perry tweeted Tuesday, using the hashtag "#MHPapology":

"I am sorry. Without reservation or qualification. I apologize to the Romney family. I work by guiding principle that those who offend do not have the right to tell those they hurt that they [are] wrong for hurting. Therefore, while I meant no offense, I want to immediately apologize to the Romney family for hurting them. As black child born into large white Mormon family I feel familiarity w/ Romney family pic & never meant to suggest otherwise. I apologize to all families built on loving transracial adoptions who feel I degraded their lives or choices."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/31/melissa-harris-perry-apology-romney-grandchild_n_4523545.html?ir=Media

#MHPapology Someone's a little full of herself.

MHP is awful. Never insightful, not the least bit interesting or witty. She's got a terrible lisp to boot. She can't go away fast enough.

CMIIAW but isn't that a qualification?

 

[Fennis]

Melissa Harris-Perry apologized Tuesday for a controversial segment on her show about Mitt Romney's adopted grandson, Kieran, who is black.

The MSNBC host came under fire after joking about a photo of the Romney family that showed Romney holding his newest grandson on his knee. During her show Sunday, Harris-Perry had shown the photo and asked her panel for caption ideas. The roundtable joked about the baby being the only black person in the picture.

Harris-Perry tweeted Tuesday, using the hashtag "#MHPapology":

"I am sorry. Without reservation or qualification. I apologize to the Romney family. I work by guiding principle that those who offend do not have the right to tell those they hurt that they [are] wrong for hurting. Therefore, while I meant no offense, I want to immediately apologize to the Romney family for hurting them. As black child born into large white Mormon family I feel familiarity w/ Romney family pic & never meant to suggest otherwise. I apologize to all families built on loving transracial adoptions who feel I degraded their lives or choices."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/31/melissa-harris-perry-apology-romney-grandchild_n_4523545.html?ir=Media

#MHPapology Someone's a little full of herself.

MHP is awful. Never insightful, not the least bit interesting or witty. She's got a terrible lisp to boot. She can't go away fast enough.

CMIIAW but isn't that a qualification?

IDTIAQBICBW

 

[Clifford]

Melissa Harris-Perry apologized Tuesday for a controversial segment on her show about Mitt Romney's adopted grandson, Kieran, who is black.

The MSNBC host came under fire after joking about a photo of the Romney family that showed Romney holding his newest grandson on his knee. During her show Sunday, Harris-Perry had shown the photo and asked her panel for caption ideas. The roundtable joked about the baby being the only black person in the picture.

Harris-Perry tweeted Tuesday, using the hashtag "#MHPapology":

"I am sorry. Without reservation or qualification. I apologize to the Romney family. I work by guiding principle that those who offend do not have the right to tell those they hurt that they [are] wrong for hurting. Therefore, while I meant no offense, I want to immediately apologize to the Romney family for hurting them. As black child born into large white Mormon family I feel familiarity w/ Romney family pic & never meant to suggest otherwise. I apologize to all families built on loving transracial adoptions who feel I degraded their lives or choices."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/31/melissa-harris-perry-apology-romney-grandchild_n_4523545.html?ir=Media

#MHPapology Someone's a little full of herself.

MHP is awful. Never insightful, not the least bit interesting or witty. She's got a terrible lisp to boot. She can't go away fast enough.

CMIIAW but isn't that a qualification?

IDTIAQBICBW

IAPSIIAQ. IQHSAMNO.

 

[Jewell]

he's not simply pointing out that the GOP isn't racially diverse, he's implying that the reason for this lack of diversity is racism.

No he isn't.

But even if he is making that implication, you should be allowed to make that implication without fear of losing your job. We shouldn't effectively take certain implications off the table just because some people find them offensive. Hell, loads of people agree with guy regarding the GOP's lack of diversity. I don't, but others do.

You don't think the GOP lacks diversity, both in their leadership (elected officials) and constituency?

Let's add three words in that sentence to make the gist of the post easier to follow. If the guy is implying that "the reason for" the GOP's lack of diversity is because the GOP is racist, then, no, I don't agree with him. It doesn't offend me if that is his implication, though, nor do I think it's a fireable offense.

 

[tommyGunZ]

he's not simply pointing out that the GOP isn't racially diverse, he's implying that the reason for this lack of diversity is racism.

No he isn't.

But even if he is making that implication, you should be allowed to make that implication without fear of losing your job. We shouldn't effectively take certain implications off the table just because some people find them offensive. Hell, loads of people agree with guy regarding the GOP's lack of diversity. I don't, but others do.

You don't think the GOP lacks diversity, both in their leadership (elected officials) and constituency?

Let's add three words in that sentence to make the gist of the post easier to follow. If the guy is implying that "the reason for" the GOP's lack of diversity is because the GOP is racist, then, no, I don't agree with him. It doesn't offend me if that is his implication, though, nor do I think it's a fireable offense.

Thanks, that's easier to follow.

Why do you think that the GOP is so whitewashed?

 

[17seconds]

he's not simply pointing out that the GOP isn't racially diverse, he's implying that the reason for this lack of diversity is racism.

No he isn't.

But even if he is making that implication, you should be allowed to make that implication without fear of losing your job. We shouldn't effectively take certain implications off the table just because some people find them offensive. Hell, loads of people agree with guy regarding the GOP's lack of diversity. I don't, but others do.

You don't think the GOP lacks diversity, both in their leadership (elected officials) and constituency?

Considering the racial makeup of each political party, minorities are probably much more under represented in the Democratic Party leadership than the GOP. The only reason the Dems have more minorities in their constituency is that they pander to the poor. It has nothing to do with their love of diversity or lack of racism, for which the history suggest they are the party of racism.

They are both under-represented in congress, Dems are closer

40% of Dem party voters are non-white

11% of Rep party voters are non-white

in congress:

255 Dems, 75 are non-white (29%)

277 Republicans, 9 are non-white (3%)

 

[TheIronSheik]

Has anyone thanked the Republicans yet?

 

[Fennis]

Thanks, that's easier to follow.

Why do you think that the GOP is so whitewashed?

That is no longer the case. Proof

 

[mad sweeney]

Bad week for NBC. Last night, Natasha Leggero, the co-host with Carson Daly on their New Years Eve show, insulted Pearl Harbor survivors while they both laughed about it. Theyre taking some heat for it today.

And rightly so.

Seriously?

Yes. You can't see how this would be offensive to some? You may think that this is only a joke, and a bad one at that. I can see that point. I also respect the view of those who believe that this is offensive.

Oh, I certainly can see how some would find the remark offensive. After all, there are a bunch of irrationally hypersensitive people sharing this world with me. The question was whether those tv personalities should "take heat" for a comment that only the irrationally hypersensitive would find offensive to a degree meriting heat-giving. I think the answer is clearly no.(For the record, I'm referring to the comment about Pearl Harbor survivors being old, not the Rommey token comments.)

I think everyone is forgetting that It's the Progressives who created this hyper-sensitive, "PC" environment we now live in. Everyone is just playing by the same rules now.

I find it very funny when some progressive (I'm not saying you are, just making a general statement) complains about people being too sensitive when that's all they've been doing for the last 30 or 40 years.

As he said, it's kind of odd then that he doesn't have his First Amendment Rights protectors who stood up for Robertson. Those same defenders who haven't uttered a peep about Lockheed Martin. Doesn't really sound like the same rules. It still sounds hypocritical and faux outrage from overreactionaries like mx who want to turn a joke that wasn't aimed at the baby and had nothing to do with the baby specifically (hint for wrong_mx: the joke was about the GOP) becomes a baby bullying CANARD!!!!! Guys like him just want to make this a huge issue so he can stick it his pocket and whip it out the next time a GOPer says blacks were happy at the back of the bus, or gays are child molesting satan worshippers and say "Well you guys did it worse!!!!"

If you want to say it's the same rules, then you should at least have it actually being the same rules. When these defenders of morality speak out against a company that lines their pocket for doing the same thing that a TV network does, then you can say it's the same rules. But it's clearly just hypocritical deflection fluff so the right wing small minded vidiots can try and justify their own side's actions.

 

[mad sweeney]

he's not simply pointing out that the GOP isn't racially diverse, he's implying that the reason for this lack of diversity is racism.

No he isn't.

But even if he is making that implication, you should be allowed to make that implication without fear of losing your job. We shouldn't effectively take certain implications off the table just because some people find them offensive. Hell, loads of people agree with guy regarding the GOP's lack of diversity. I don't, but others do.

You don't think the GOP lacks diversity, both in their leadership (elected officials) and constituency?

Considering the racial makeup of each political party, minorities are probably much more under represented in the Democratic Party leadership than the GOP. The only reason the Dems have more minorities in their constituency is that they pander to the poor. It has nothing to do with their love of diversity or lack of racism, for which the history suggest they are the party of racism.

Love it when jonnay goes and proves people right about him.

 

[Clifford]

he's not simply pointing out that the GOP isn't racially diverse, he's implying that the reason for this lack of diversity is racism.

No he isn't.

But even if he is making that implication, you should be allowed to make that implication without fear of losing your job. We shouldn't effectively take certain implications off the table just because some people find them offensive. Hell, loads of people agree with guy regarding the GOP's lack of diversity. I don't, but others do.

You don't think the GOP lacks diversity, both in their leadership (elected officials) and constituency?

Considering the racial makeup of each political party, minorities are probably much more under represented in the Democratic Party leadership than the GOP. The only reason the Dems have more minorities in their constituency is that they pander to the poor. It has nothing to do with their love of diversity or lack of racism, for which the history suggest they are the party of racism.

They are both under-represented in congress, Dems are closer

40% of Dem party voters are non-white

11% of Rep party voters are non-white

in congress:

255 Dems, 75 are non-white (29%)

277 Republicans, 9 are non-white (3%)

The Dem numbers resemble the makeup of the US. The Repub numbers do not. So even at 29% one could say the Dems are fully represented and at 3% the Republican party does not resemble the demographic makeup of the country. Which of course leads to accusations that they only care about white people problems, which if you look at the Republican voting record of the last 25 years or so, is unequivocally true. Unless you live in a fairy land where you believe economic demographics don't map to racial demographics.

Sorry but unless you have total blinders on the Republicans are the party of the white male and the Democratic party is the party of everyone else. So claiming a newsperson should be fired for pointing out the obvious pretty much represents what is horribly wrong with our media and the public's reaction to it.

And Tim I'm sorry but how in the #### do you justify calling for the head of the white guy while allowing the black female who sang "one of these things" gets a pass. Other than she's black so that makes it ok?

 

[Jewell]

he's not simply pointing out that the GOP isn't racially diverse, he's implying that the reason for this lack of diversity is racism.

No he isn't.

But even if he is making that implication, you should be allowed to make that implication without fear of losing your job. We shouldn't effectively take certain implications off the table just because some people find them offensive. Hell, loads of people agree with guy regarding the GOP's lack of diversity. I don't, but others do.

You don't think the GOP lacks diversity, both in their leadership (elected officials) and constituency?

Let's add three words in that sentence to make the gist of the post easier to follow. If the guy is implying that "the reason for" the GOP's lack of diversity is because the GOP is racist, then, no, I don't agree with him. It doesn't offend me if that is his implication, though, nor do I think it's a fireable offense.

Thanks, that's easier to follow.

Why do you think that the GOP is so whitewashed?

1. Non-whites believe that Democrats better represent their interest (in part because that's what the media that the majority of non-whites get their information from patently* conveys.)

2. People are tribal* and many non-whites view the GOP as the white party (in part because that's what the media that the majority of non-whites get their information from patently* conveys.)

3. Whites believe that Republicans better represent their interest (in part because that's what the media that the majority of whites get their information from latently* conveys.)

4. People are tribal* and many whites view the Democrat Party as increasingly becoming the non-white party (in part because that's what the media that the majority of whites get their information from latently* conveys.)

* Though people are tribal, the degree to which groups are allowed to openly act tribal varies greatly and that is reflected in the media patent vs. latent difference noted above.

 

[17seconds]

he's not simply pointing out that the GOP isn't racially diverse, he's implying that the reason for this lack of diversity is racism.

No he isn't.

But even if he is making that implication, you should be allowed to make that implication without fear of losing your job. We shouldn't effectively take certain implications off the table just because some people find them offensive. Hell, loads of people agree with guy regarding the GOP's lack of diversity. I don't, but others do.

You don't think the GOP lacks diversity, both in their leadership (elected officials) and constituency?

Considering the racial makeup of each political party, minorities are probably much more under represented in the Democratic Party leadership than the GOP. The only reason the Dems have more minorities in their constituency is that they pander to the poor. It has nothing to do with their love of diversity or lack of racism, for which the history suggest they are the party of racism.

They are both under-represented in congress, Dems are closer

40% of Dem party voters are non-white

11% of Rep party voters are non-white

in congress:

255 Dems, 75 are non-white (29%)

277 Republicans, 9 are non-white (3%)

The Dem numbers resemble the makeup of the US. The Repub numbers do not. So even at 29% one could say the Dems are fully represented and at 3% the Republican party does not resemble the demographic makeup of the country. Which of course leads to accusations that they only care about white people problems, which if you look at the Republican voting record of the last 25 years or so, is unequivocally true. Unless you live in a fairy land where you believe economic demographics don't map to racial demographics.

Sorry but unless you have total blinders on the Republicans are the party of the white male and the Democratic party is the party of everyone else. So claiming a newsperson should be fired for pointing out the obvious pretty much represents what is horribly wrong with our media and the public's reaction to it.

A party is under no obligation to match the demographics of the country, or even come close. But I do think it's amazing they are even whiter than their overwhelmingly white constituency. No question they are out of touch with the real culture of the citizens they are representing. Maybe even worse than race they're also really, really old (both parties).

But I don't see how you tie any of that to the children adopted by the Romney family.

 

[Clifford]

Any party interested in surviving in a democracy has a vested interest in mapping to the demographics of the country.

 

[fatness]

Considering the racial makeup of each political party, minorities are probably much more under represented in the Democratic Party leadership than the GOP. The only reason the Dems have more minorities in their constituency is that they pander to the poor. It has nothing to do with their love of diversity or lack of racism, for which the history suggest they are the party of racism.

/\​

"​

"​

I love this.​

​

Minorities are more under-represented by Democrats because Democrats include more minorities.

 

[Sinn Fein]

How did this diverge into a conversation around political party diversity?

Black kid growing up in a rich white family is funny stuff. I guess Different Strokes, for different folks.

 

[Todd Andrews]

KooKWhine.

The GOP cant stand minority Americans.

 

[Dr Oadi]

How did this diverge into a conversation around political party diversity?

.

Liberals can't be racist because they have all the non rich minorities in their democrat political party!

 

[Apple Jack]

How did this diverge into a conversation around political party diversity?

Black kid growing up in a rich white family is funny stuff. I guess Different Strokes, for different folks.

This week, on a very special episode of Diff'rent Strokes...

 

[quickhands]

KooKWhine.

The GOP cant stand minority Americans.

the cow says "moooooooo"

 

[Sinn Fein]

How did this diverge into a conversation around political party diversity?

Black kid growing up in a rich white family is funny stuff. I guess Different Strokes, for different folks.

This week, on a very special episode of Diff'rent Strokes...

Just wait until the kid learns about child molesters.

#whatchutalkinboutwillis

 

[jon_mx]

Considering the racial makeup of each political party, minorities are probably much more under represented in the Democratic Party leadership than the GOP. The only reason the Dems have more minorities in their constituency is that they pander to the poor. It has nothing to do with their love of diversity or lack of racism, for which the history suggest they are the party of racism.

/\​

"​

"​

I love this.​

​

Minorities are more under-represented by Democrats because Democrats include more minorities.

It is not about being inclusive. It is about policies which pander to them. Republicans were the party of equality and won all the big battles which brought about equality under the law to the races. Now the Dems have bought the inner city poor who are mostly minority with welfare, extended unemployment benefits, affirmative action, food stamps, section 8 housing, public transportation, promises of free health care, tax rebates to people who don't even pay taxes etc., etc., etc. Those voters are not Democrats because of their inclusiveness, they are Democrats because the Democrats have created a huge class of people who are Dependent upon government for life's necessities.

 

[AAABatteries]

I've been waiting for the Navin Johnson alias to post the he can empathize but alas, nothing.

 

[mad sweeney]

Considering the racial makeup of each political party, minorities are probably much more under represented in the Democratic Party leadership than the GOP. The only reason the Dems have more minorities in their constituency is that they pander to the poor. It has nothing to do with their love of diversity or lack of racism, for which the history suggest they are the party of racism.

/\​

"​

"​

I love this.​

​

Minorities are more under-represented by Democrats because Democrats include more minorities.

It is not about being inclusive. It is about policies which pander to them. Republicans were the party of equality and won all the big battles which brought about equality under the law to the races. Now the Dems have bought the inner city poor who are mostly minority with welfare, extended unemployment benefits, affirmative action, food stamps, section 8 housing, public transportation, promises of free health care, tax rebates to people who don't even pay taxes etc., etc., etc. Those voters are not Democrats because of their inclusiveness, they are Democrats because the Democrats have created a huge class of people who are Dependent upon government for life's necessities.

That's who I think about when I think of racial equality. Republicans!

The policies of the current Republican Party bear little resemblance to the good ol' days. Y'know, back when negroes were happy with separate but equal. Democrat's mission statement has changed too. Party affiliation and whatever "those uppity minorites" vote for doesn't change what the Rs stand for today and I doubt that even you have ever said something so outlandishly false as trying to say that the GOP today stands for equality.

 

[bigbottom]

Considering the racial makeup of each political party, minorities are probably much more under represented in the Democratic Party leadership than the GOP. The only reason the Dems have more minorities in their constituency is that they pander to the poor. It has nothing to do with their love of diversity or lack of racism, for which the history suggest they are the party of racism.

/\

"

"

I love this.

Minorities are more under-represented by Democrats because Democrats include more minorities.

It is not about being inclusive. It is about policies which pander to them. Republicans were the party of equality and won all the big battles which brought about equality under the law to the races. Now the Dems have bought the inner city poor who are mostly minority with welfare, extended unemployment benefits, affirmative action, food stamps, section 8 housing, public transportation, promises of free health care, tax rebates to people who don't even pay taxes etc., etc., etc. Those voters are not Democrats because of their inclusiveness, they are Democrats because the Democrats have created a huge class of people who are Dependent upon government for life's necessities.

This reads like a Mitt Romney private fundraising dinner speech. And I intend that as an observation, not an insult.

I'm also curious what percentage of actual voters are "the inner city poor."

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Considering the racial makeup of each political party, minorities are probably much more under represented in the Democratic Party leadership than the GOP. The only reason the Dems have more minorities in their constituency is that they pander to the poor. It has nothing to do with their love of diversity or lack of racism, for which the history suggest they are the party of racism.

/\​

"​

"​

I love this.​

​

Minorities are more under-represented by Democrats because Democrats include more minorities.

It is not about being inclusive. It is about policies which pander to them. Republicans were the party of equality and won all the big battles which brought about equality under the law to the races. Now the Dems have bought the inner city poor who are mostly minority with welfare, extended unemployment benefits, affirmative action, food stamps, section 8 housing, public transportation, promises of free health care, tax rebates to people who don't even pay taxes etc., etc., etc. Those voters are not Democrats because of their inclusiveness, they are Democrats because the Democrats have created a huge class of people who are Dependent upon government for life's necessities.

You live in a wholly separate reality. You have fully absorbed the echo-chamber of excuses, well done.

Always remember people.... Helping the least (like those who are oppressed) among us is "buying votes".

 

[bigbottom]

277 Republicans, 9 are non-white (3%)

I'm actually surprised by how low this number is. Doing a little digging, I find the following numbers for Congress (excluding non-voting delegates):

43 African-American (42 D, 1 R)

31 Hispanic (24 D, 7 R)

9 Asian-American/Pacific Islanders (9 D, 0 R)

 

[bigbottom]

he's not simply pointing out that the GOP isn't racially diverse, he's implying that the reason for this lack of diversity is racism.

No he isn't.

Yeah, I don't get that at all. His joke was about the lack of diversity at the Republican convention, and how they find the one black guy to focus on to make themselves look diverse. He didn't say anything that would imply a reason for the lack of diversity, much less racism as the reason. I think Tim may be viewing the joke through the lens of his own perception.

Comedian Dean Obeidallah told Harris-Perry that he thought the photo was "great" and that "it really sums up the diversity of the Republican party, the RNC. At the convention, they find the one black person."

That said, I didn't like the segment because I think it's bad form to joke about the minor children/grandchildren of politicians.

 

[TPW]

Considering the racial makeup of each political party, minorities are probably much more under represented in the Democratic Party leadership than the GOP. The only reason the Dems have more minorities in their constituency is that they pander to the poor. It has nothing to do with their love of diversity or lack of racism, for which the history suggest they are the party of racism.

/\​

"​

"​

I love this.​

​

Minorities are more under-represented by Democrats because Democrats include more minorities.

It is not about being inclusive. It is about policies which pander to them. Republicans were the party of equality and won all the big battles which brought about equality under the law to the races. Now the Dems have bought the inner city poor who are mostly minority with welfare, extended unemployment benefits, affirmative action, food stamps, section 8 housing, public transportation, promises of free health care, tax rebates to people who don't even pay taxes etc., etc., etc. Those voters are not Democrats because of their inclusiveness, they are Democrats because the Democrats have created a huge class of people who are Dependent upon government for life's necessities.

You live in a wholly separate reality. You have fully absorbed the echo-chamber of excuses, well done.

Always remember people.... Helping the least (like those who are oppressed) among us is "buying votes".

Having record numbers of Americans on disability and food stamps and offering services to illegals on the taxpayer dime has nothing to do with helping the least among us. It's pure, cynical, political patronage and the Democrats have made an art form out of it. I might also add that their leadership has profited handsomely under Obama while the inequality levels have skyrocketed.

But you guys go right on ahead falling for those ridiculous identity politics games and thinking you're sticking it to the man. The reality of the situation is that as long as Americans keep voting for the same kind of corrupt leadership as Detroit or any other number of decaying blue state urban cesspools, they're going to get the same results.

 

[The Commish]

holy crap 2014 is going to be awesome

 

[fatness]

You don't think the GOP lacks diversity, both in their leadership (elected officials) and constituency?

Considering the racial makeup of each political party, minorities are probably much more under represented in the Democratic Party leadership than the GOP. The only reason the Dems have more minorities in their constituency is that they pander to the poor. It has nothing to do with their love of diversity or lack of racism, for which the history suggest they are the party of racism.

/\​

"​

"​

I love this.​

​

Minorities are more under-represented by Democrats because Democrats include more minorities.

It is not about being inclusive. It is about policies which pander to them.

 

[B-Deep]

i didn't get it

 

[Apple Jack]

holy crap 2014 is going to be awesome

That fella is a few sammiches short of an elevator.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Considering the racial makeup of each political party, minorities are probably much more under represented in the Democratic Party leadership than the GOP. The only reason the Dems have more minorities in their constituency is that they pander to the poor. It has nothing to do with their love of diversity or lack of racism, for which the history suggest they are the party of racism.

/\​

"​

"​

I love this.​

​

Minorities are more under-represented by Democrats because Democrats include more minorities.

It is not about being inclusive. It is about policies which pander to them. Republicans were the party of equality and won all the big battles which brought about equality under the law to the races. Now the Dems have bought the inner city poor who are mostly minority with welfare, extended unemployment benefits, affirmative action, food stamps, section 8 housing, public transportation, promises of free health care, tax rebates to people who don't even pay taxes etc., etc., etc. Those voters are not Democrats because of their inclusiveness, they are Democrats because the Democrats have created a huge class of people who are Dependent upon government for life's necessities.

You live in a wholly separate reality. You have fully absorbed the echo-chamber of excuses, well done.

Always remember people.... Helping the least (like those who are oppressed) among us is "buying votes".

Having record numbers of Americans on disability and food stamps and offering services to illegals on the taxpayer dime has nothing to do with helping the least among us. It's pure, cynical, political patronage and the Democrats have made an art form out of it. I might also add that their leadership has profited handsomely under Obama while the inequality levels have skyrocketed.

But you guys go right on ahead falling for those ridiculous identity politics games and thinking you're sticking it to the man. The reality of the situation is that as long as Americans keep voting for the same kind of corrupt leadership as Detroit or any other number of decaying blue state urban cesspools, they're going to get the same results.

You and johnnay must be bunkmates in that same separate reality.

 

[jamny]

I still don't get why he's dressed in pink?

 

[Jewell]

I still don't get why he's dressed in pink?

Yeah, that's confusing. His name choice, Kieran, is a bit more straight forward, though...http://www.sheknows.com/baby-names/name/kieran

 

[jamny]

I still don't get why he's dressed in pink?

Yeah, that's confusing. His name choice, Kieran, is a bit more straight forward, though...http://www.sheknows.com/baby-names/name/kieran

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I still don't get why he's dressed in pink?

Yeah, that's confusing. His name choice, Kieran, is a bit more straight forward, though...http://www.sheknows.com/baby-names/name/kieran

indeed.

 

[Fennis]

I would have bet the kids name was Tad, Chip, or maybe Kip.

Kip Romney III was the leading contendor.

 

[mad sweeney]

Considering the racial makeup of each political party, minorities are probably much more under represented in the Democratic Party leadership than the GOP. The only reason the Dems have more minorities in their constituency is that they pander to the poor. It has nothing to do with their love of diversity or lack of racism, for which the history suggest they are the party of racism.

/\​

"​

"​

I love this.​

​

Minorities are more under-represented by Democrats because Democrats include more minorities.

It is not about being inclusive. It is about policies which pander to them. Republicans were the party of equality and won all the big battles which brought about equality under the law to the races. Now the Dems have bought the inner city poor who are mostly minority with welfare, extended unemployment benefits, affirmative action, food stamps, section 8 housing, public transportation, promises of free health care, tax rebates to people who don't even pay taxes etc., etc., etc. Those voters are not Democrats because of their inclusiveness, they are Democrats because the Democrats have created a huge class of people who are Dependent upon government for life's necessities.

You live in a wholly separate reality. You have fully absorbed the echo-chamber of excuses, well done.

Always remember people.... Helping the least (like those who are oppressed) among us is "buying votes".

Having record numbers of Americans on disability and food stamps and offering services to illegals on the taxpayer dime has nothing to do with helping the least among us. It's pure, cynical, political patronage and the Democrats have made an art form out of it. I might also add that their leadership has profited handsomely under Obama while the inequality levels have skyrocketed.

But you guys go right on ahead falling for those ridiculous identity politics games and thinking you're sticking it to the man. The reality of the situation is that as long as Americans keep voting for the same kind of corrupt leadership as Detroit or any other number of decaying blue state urban cesspools, they're going to get the same results.

So have weapons manufacturers.

 

[Statorama]

I would have bet the kids name was Tad, Chip, or maybe Kip.

Kip Romney III was the leading contendor.

Dang, was hoping for "Tiger"

 

[jon_mx]

I still don't get why he's dressed in pink?

they are hoping he is gay too! Kill two birds with one stone.

 

[Jewell]

MHP is awful. Never insightful, not the least bit interesting or witty. She's got a terrible lisp to boot. She can't go away fast enough.

Hey, that's "America's foremost public intellectual" that you're talking about! And "there is no one who communicates the work of thinking to more people with more rigor and effect than Harris-Perry."http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-smartest-nerd-in-the-room/282836/

 

[T Bell]

I still don't get why he's dressed in pink?

Yeah, that's confusing. His name choice, Kieran, is a bit more straight forward, though...http://www.sheknows.com/baby-names/name/kieran

indeed.

Interesting. I didn't know that meaning. In Britain, it's a fairly common name, and in fact Arsenal's left back Kieren Gibbs is black.

The thing is, though, white guys have that name too.