True Statement by Chris Rock

Flash said:
No, but he was a civil rights leader, not a politician. By definition he was more aggressive seeking major changes before many were ready. If MLK had been a white man he would have had no more chance to be elected.
Click to expand...

Your opinion vs mine.

Trump is not a politician either. Not even a civil rights or any other kind of leader.

And yes, he's a shitty President, but he got elected. Given how much more grounded in sanity and reality MLK was than Trump is, MLK would've been light yearsⁿ better at it than Trump.

Also, JFK held many if not most of the same beliefs MLK did and he got elected.

Point is, back then, a black person couldn't get elected to any public office.

The fact that today, black mayors, sheriffs, police commissioners, state legislators, governors, congressmen and senators are commonplace, proves that blacks have, in fact "made progress".
 
Nomad said:
MLK met every qualification and would have made an excellent President.

Think he would've come close in an election running against a white man?
Click to expand...

Back then, probably not; but in the now present, good possibility.

His comments reached across the lines of color, that so many people on both sides of the political party seem to want to hang onto.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Back then, probably not; but in the now present, good possibility.

His comments reached across the lines of color, that so many people on both sides of the political party seem to want to hang onto.
Click to expand...

GoMad wouldn't have voted for him because he was a Republican.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Back then, probably not; but in the now present, good possibility.

His comments reached across the lines of color, that so many people on both sides of the political party seem to want to hang onto.
Click to expand...

My point was about blacks being qualified to be President.

MLK was eminently qualified in every pertinent way.

Mentally, intellectually, educationally, emotionally, physically, etc, etc, etc.

That was my point.

Nothing to do with his message or politics or positions on issues, or whether society was ready for a black, pacifist President, etc, etc.

He had all the necessary tools and human qualifications to do the job and perform well.
 
Nomad said:
My point was about blacks being qualified to be President.

MLK was eminently qualified in every pertinent way.

Mentally, intellectually, educationally, emotionally, physically, etc, etc, etc.

That was my point.

Nothing to do with his message or politics or positions on issues, or whether society was ready for a black, pacifist President, etc, etc.

He had all the necessary tools and human qualifications to do the job and perform well.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, "qualified" also means convincing others that you're capable and able; because without the support, you're going nowhere.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Unfortunately, "qualified" also means convincing others that you're capable and able; because without the support, you're going nowhere.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what qualified means at all.

Not even close.

You're just trying to make the very weak case that the fact that he couldn't have been elected in the 50's or 60's was partly due to some shortcoming on his part, which is nonsense.

He was fully qualified and able to have served as POTUS but couldn't get elected because of his ethnicity.

Period.

No ifs, ands or buts.
 
Threedee said:
BECAUSE ONE DROP OF BLOOD, PEOPLE!
Click to expand...
"The social and legal concept of the "one-drop rule" does not exist outside the United States. The legal aspect of the "one-drop rule" is defunct in the United States and was never codified into federal law.
Or, is everyone an "invisible black person"?
 
TOP said:
"The social and legal concept of the "one-drop rule" does not exist outside the United States. The legal aspect of the "one-drop rule" is defunct in the United States and was never codified into federal law.
Or, is everyone an "invisible black person"?
Click to expand...

If that's true, than it is no longer safe to walk down the street.
 
Flash said:
The issue isn't whether whites were willing to vote for black candidates or whether there were qualified black candidates. They had to actually choose to run for office and have sufficient charisma and character to win. And, they have to be better than most of the other candidates in their party. People like Jesse Jackson or Shirley Chisholm did not meet those criteria. Did that mean those voting in the Democratic primaries were racists?
Click to expand...

What charisma and character did Richard Nixon have?
 
rhym3pays said:
What charisma and character did Richard Nixon have?
Click to expand...

He was an established political leader with a lot of experience. I think charisma was a little less important in those days before the increased importance of the media. Look at the Kennedy-Nixon debates and how his blandness and appearance hurt him. He couldn't even win governor of CA two years later.

Sometimes the ability to get elected depends on your opponent or the circumstances. In 1968 the Democrats were split by Vietnam, the violence at the Chicago convention, and the Wallace candidacy. All that helped a candidate with no charisma to win.
 
Nomad said:
No, that's not what qualified means at all.

Not even close.

You're just trying to make the very weak case that the fact that he couldn't have been elected in the 50's or 60's was partly due to some shortcoming on his part, which is nonsense.

He was fully qualified and able to have served as POTUS but couldn't get elected because of his ethnicity.

Period.

No ifs, ands or buts.
Click to expand...

You may feel your qualified; but you're going nowhere, if you can't convince others that you are qualified for that position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top