Skip to main content

The GOP now has the women's, minorities', and homosexuals' vote! ...they think...

I found a segment on The Daily Show last night to be quite humorous in a sad sort of way. It talked about how there were some female, minority, and even homosexual Republicans that got elected in Tuesday's elections. On one hand, it's great that we're gradually becoming more diverse in politics. It's about time politicians looked a bit more representative of our country at large in modern-day America, as opposed to the 1950s (that may even be a bit too contemporary...). However, on the other hand, I know full well what the main reason is for the Republican Party to seek female, minority, and homosexual representatives - to try and appeal to more women, minority, and homosexual voters, and the troubling part about that is, they think it will be effective.

It reminds me of when Herman Cain ran to become the Republican nominee for the 2012 presidential election. Both he and the party in general seriously thought that if he were the nominee, he'd be able to win a much larger share of the black vote than someone like Mitt Romney (or pretty much anyone else that ran). The GOP similarly feels by having more women, minorities, and homosexual politicians of their ilk, they'll earn more votes from these very demographics. What they don't seem to realize is that the main problem with women's, minorities', and homosexuals' views of the Republican Party isn't the face of the party; it's the message.

Do they really think the following scenario will now happen?

Before
Homosexual #1: "So, who are you voting for?"

Homosexual #2: "Are you kidding me? The Democrat. The Republican doesn't think we should be allowed to get married, even though we've been together for 20 years! How about you?"

Homosexual #1: "I was just kidding. Yeah, same here."


After
Homosexual #1: "So, who are you voting for?"

Homosexual #2: "The Republican! He's gay, just like us!"

Homosexual #1: "But he's against us getting married, even though we've been together for 20 years!"

Homosexual #2: "So? We'll be just like him then, I guess!"

Homosexual #1: "Yeah, you're right! Let's support gays that don't support gays' rights!"


So, yeah, kudos to the GOP for attempting to be more diverse on the surface, but if you truly want to have a more diverse array of voters, you may want to work on that ancient message a bit...
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more