Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Donald Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zax who wrote (1206)	9/11/2015 11:01:30 PM
From: John	1 Recommendation Recommended By GROUND ZERO™ Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 73580

So, the bottom line is that you think that is understandable for non-Whites to have special-interest groups since they are "underrepresented minorities", but it doesn't make since for Whites to have the same groups. Let me pose the problem to you in a different way. Forget about Romney reaching out to Whites for a moment, as Obama did to Blacks and Latinos. You've clearly explained why you think that the former would have been a foolish idea because Whites aren't an "underrepresented minority." What if Romney had formed African-Americans for Romney and also Latinos for Romney? Would those have been viewed as racist? Regarding my earlier question, "Is it fair and justified for a people who comprise 13% of the U.S. population to have a 50% say in the nation's affairs?" I asked this because you clearly believe that it doesn't make sense for Whites to have special interest groups since Whites do not comprise a group of "underrepresented minorities". That implies that you believe that everyone should have an equal say in all, and that the presence of non-White special interest groups attempts to facilitate a 50-50 balance and equality of sorts. Please feel free to clarify your views.