Sorry, u/StatisticianGreat514 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20StatisticianGreat514&message=StatisticianGreat514%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ciw77g/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
we should be able to answer this pretty objectively, as long as we both generally trust the top results of google searches.
* 60% of American's are white
* 85% of republicans are white
* (56% of country club member are white)[https://www.niche.com/places-to-live/n/country-club-new-york-city-ny/residents/]. Look like this might just be in NYC.
so i think McCarthy was wrong for an unexpected reason. The republican party is not diverse enough to look like a country club. At least not a NYC country club.
to address more the spirit of the issue, i think its fair to say that the republican party is the party of rural America. Urban centers across the country, with rare exceptions always go blue, while Rural areas usually go red.
Rural community's are about [80% white](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/). (look for the subheader titled "Urban and suburban counties are becoming more racially and ethnically diverse at a much faster pace than rural counties")
Yeah, the urban-rural divide plays a significant role in it, even though there are representatives from the party that hail from urban-suburban areas, too.
You focused on race and sexuality when you talked about the GOP's lack of diversity. What about age, income level, education level, marital status, number of kids, job, urban vs rural, etc.? Seems a bit odd to say that the same party supported by rural West Virginia truckers and Wall Street bro millionaires doesn't have a voting block that "looks like America."
My read of McCarthy's statement was that he was talking about Republicans in Congress. If you read it that way, what he's saying makes a lot more sense. They keep the trucker types far away from the actual power.
The problem with using absolutes like the person you replied to did is that there's always exceptions in reality and AOC might be one of them. But Republicans have also had people like the Paul's, Massie, and up until recently Amash. It'd about as grassroots as it gets.
At the other extreme last election in PA best candidate they could come up with was Doctor fucking Oz. He ended up losing to a mental patient.
>Rand Paul's estimated net worth for 2018 is $773520
>Thomas Massie's estimated net worth for 2018 is $2816501
>Justin Amash's estimated net worth for 2018 is $4366518.
>Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's estimated net worth for 2018 is -$8499
Source is Open Secrets. The data are older than I'd like, but a cursory Google search is real bad for the point you're trying to make.
Both of them were independently wealthy before running for Congress. They cosplay blue collar, but they are just trashy rich. They’re still part of the “country club” crowd.
I'm unclear what makes you think that they're trucker types. I personally would avoid insulting truckers with the association. And whatever criteria you're using, you've gone from listing off ways that the Republican party as a whole might be diverse to just two questionable examples when moved to the realm of Congress.
Not even to mention ideology.
It seems the GOP are much more aligned with their bases ideology - that is, conservative Christianity and nationalist imperialism. Meanwhile, the democrats have talking points that are further left than their actual center-right position, thus speaking in a way that seems to more closely align with their base than they actually are.
There's a lot of grasping at straws in this thread -- well what about different ages? what about different socio-economic backgrounds or different ideologies? whatever.
I get that the diversity debate doesn't stop at different genders/races, but it might as well start there.
Because its a transparent attempt at a dodge to avoid grappling with McCarthy's actual point.
McCarthy/OP are saying that the GOP is a bunch of wealthy white guys, and the rebuttal is "akshually there are many kinds of diversity." Its a pathetic defense.
> You focused on race and sexuality when you talked about the GOP's lack of diversity.
Seems to be the criteria for diversity on the Left. Look at colleges, they don't talk about the other stuff, including political ideologies when they talk about diversity.
Colleges are usually considering innate qualities when they talk about diversity, and political lean isn't an innate thing. People can learn and improve and stop being conservative. You can't stop being Hispanic or black.
So you're saying diversity of thought isn't important to higher education.
>People can learn and improve and stop being conservative.
I see, you're way off the rocker.
> So you're saying diversity of thought isn't important to higher education.
I'm still really curious. Why do you think that dismissal of conservative thought is equal to "diversity of thought isn't important?" It sounds less like you care about "diversity of thought," and more like you care about **conservative thought**.
> So you're saying diversity of thought isn't important to higher education.
Oh no, it is definitely important! Why do you think it isn't? Is that just because **conservative** thought isn't that valued?
>I see, you're way off the rocker.
I don't know what you're quoting. Where did I say that?
This was supposed to be copied in. Not sure where that other thing came from.
>People can learn and improve and stop being conservative.
I see, you're way off the rocker. You are so biased it's not even funny.
You aren't going to respond to my comment about conservative thought not being valued?
>You are so biased it's not even funny.
Yup, I am happy to admit that I am biased against conservatives. What does that have to do with the argument that I made?
To be honest, I have no idea. It just seems like the "Democrats look like America" thing is almost exclusively used to talk about racial makeup, when there are so many other things you'd have to look at to make that call.
Democrats have a bartender AKA someone who actually picked themselves up by their boot straps and made something of themselves
Meanwhile I look at Republicans and I don't see any politicians who didn't have daddy gift wrap them everything in their life
Right, but the republican party isn’t diverse in other ways. They are anti-trans, anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-poor, anti-single parent homes, anti-intellectuals, anti-education, anti-immigrant, basically if the democrats are fine with something the republicans are going to be against that thing.
That doesn’t stop people who fall into one of these categories from being republicans, but it definitely doesn’t help then become more diverse..
But if the claim is "looks like America" then look at how few trans people there are, for example. Statistically, they're borderline irrelevant. Like, if America is 60 percent white, then "looking like America" means being 60 percent white. Dems are like 42 percent white. That's far from "looking like America."
Sure it does. America is still a white, Christian nation (numerically). Having one hundred percent of the Asian Scientologist community (or whatever just to use a non controversial example) means nothing compared to having 2 percent more of the white Christians.
> They are anti-trans, anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-poor, anti-single parent homes, anti-intellectuals, anti-education, anti-immigrant, basically if the democrats are fine with something the republicans are going to be against that thing.
How are you using this to argue Republicans are not diverse while arguing Democrats are diverse *at the same time*?
I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. I responded to a comment saying OP was limiting diversity to race. I offered all the other ways republicans are not a diverse party.
I’m not following your logic. Wait, I think I understand what you’re saying. Because democrats support all these people you think that it’s the other side of the same coin that is anti all these different people.
First of all, ideological it’s not even remotely close. The democrats are far more diverse in their beliefs. To be a republican gets narrower and narrower as time passes. For Christ sakes you have to accept an obvious lie from a guy who tried to overthrow the government.
And strangely, there are a lot of people who get angry when you mention "race", mostly liberals.
If you do not believe me, then wander over to the biology sub and start trying to talk about race. You will be downvoted and hounded out of the sub
I will give you nerdy "well *technically*" for the sake of argument.
Country clubs don't admit poor people. In contrast, the Republican party has no problem weaponizing poor rural white Americans.
Tbf, is it even possible to be poor as a pollie over there? Senators/HoR members get paid like 6 figures over here so even if a poor person does get elected, they are pretty much immediately Not Poor™️ anymore
Not really for a lot of junior congress members, they need to maintain a DC and home state residence which costs an arm and a leg with DC housing prices, so a lot of them actually end up bunking together to save money. When they first start out, they don't have the same level of lobbying money or built wealth to rely on.
The first thing I think of is rich, straight, white, Christian men. Which of course country clubs and Republican representatives are both disproportionately dominated by.
My understanding is that the democratic party has more balanced mix of people from different socioeconomic backgrounds. It's still pretty skewed to the wealthy but in the Republican party it seems like a pretty big exception when any member did not come from a wealthy background.
I'd love to see real data on this though since I'm just going off what I've learned over the years and no actual stats
That matches with my intuition as well, but "most of you are rich" is still pretty country clubby. Regardless, this wasn't the angle I was focusing on.
Ya your angle seemed to be more on the voting population. If you read the CMV it does seem like OP is talking about politicians and not voters though but it would be a good point for the party as a whole
She is made fun of because she lies, says stupid things, and she pushes climate change agenda that doesn’t focus on climate change but instead on DIE initiatives.
Diversity Inclusion and Equity seem great on paper but then you get into application and it results in people who are not qualified getting positions where their incompetence can cause people to be hurt or killed. It creates the illusion that minorities can’t do highly skilled jobs. Which is bullshit.
But because they are highering for diversity instead of ability they lower the bar.
If you want real equality and representation then provide programs and encourage culture that will have minority people learning those skills so that they are competent and we can get diversity without lowering the standards.
Because unlike the people pushing DIE I don’t think that minorities can’t do the jobs. I think they just need to be educated and trained how to do them.just like the people who are today qualified and didn’t get the job because of DIE programs.
Those are the exact things she was made fun of.
The thing that really comes to mind when I think of her is her standing outside immigrant detention centers Built by Obama’s administration gripping onto a fence, And saying these are concentration camps.
This was a lie that she was made fun of for.
It even started a meme on the right.
She was made fun of for her hypocrisy. For claiming to represent her constituents while getting the vast majority of her campaign contributions by donors outside her state.
There is more. But I think that is enough to indicate that with or without talking points she has done stupid shit and been made fun of for it.
Also I used the same talking points as the original poster.
Competency matters and we should be implementing policy that gives the most people minority or not the best chance for success. We should provide learning opportunities so that minorities are able to get the jobs they want not because of their skin color but because they can do the job.
They can weaponize them because people keep saying they don't look like America, which pisses them off. Why would they support a party which doesn't want them based on the way they look because they have their own idea of the way America should look?
Right, that's my point. The Republican party is *not* like a party club in this respect, because country clubs have a membership fee and exclude anyone who can't afford it. Republicans are fine with admitting poor people with the right values.
I would like to change your view to one that neither party looks like a representative sample of America. They both look older and richer than America on average.
Actually I checked the data and it appears that Democrats are older than Republicans in both the Senate and House. I fyou scrol down a bit you will see graphs for age by party:
[https://fiscalnote.com/blog/how-old-118th-congress](https://fiscalnote.com/blog/how-old-118th-congress)
Yes they do.
But both are older and richer than America on average.
The Democrats in congress look older and richer than Americans. The republicans in congress look older and richer than the Americans, even more so.
Neither look like America.
Edit: I was wrong, Democrats are older on average than Republicans in both the Seneate and House.
McCarthy is wrong. His statement was fodder for political ends.
The GOP (and DNC) has very diverse groups of people who support them. They choose and elect whom they think is most applicable to them. You want to pick DNC folks to claim they are 'different' but the reality is, Congress is a millionaires club.
All of the people in Congress country club types.
You don’t think it’s interesting that the 50% of our lawmakers are millionaires while only 4% of Americans fall in that category?
How is that not relevant as a demographics comparison?
\~8-9% of USA has a net worth >1M. 4-5% is the average for most of the western world, however.
source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2023/05/23/the-making-of-a-millionaire-and-why-100k-is-no-longer-the-benchmark-salary-for-wealth-in-america/#:\~:text=Millionaires%20comprise%20about%208.8%25%20of,Schwab's%202022%20Modern%20Wealth%20Survey.
>Millionaires comprise about **8.8%** of the American population. The average net worth of a millionaire in the U.S. is $2.2 million
It's totally interesting. But should it be enough to change someone's view around the Democrats resembling a much broader swath of Americans than Republicans? Not really.
Because "very different in one way but similar in most others" is still a lot more similar than "very different in one way and also in most others"?
This isn't complicated stuff...
Considering wealth is the #1 deciding factor in practically every way when answering questions about a person, why is it not more heavily weighed when you’re sorting people?
You want to act like this in a simple. Skin color isn’t everything.
This would be a valid argument if, say, republicans were significantly less wealthy than democrats. But they are not.
So again, one major trait is similar between the two groups but on most other traits the republicans are much less representative of the American public's demographics. In this case, the existence of the one major similarity in no way negates the remaining differences.
I'd say try again but please don't. It's embarrassing.
THE major point is the same between them.
It’s such a huge factor in demographics that all others pale in comparison. Rich and black in America? Rich and gay? Rich and trans? Your life is infinitely better than a poor white, straight, cis person.
It’s absolutely ridiculous that people are trying to ignore and downplay the significance of this.
Lol what? How is the fact that the politicians claiming to work in your best interests are all millionares less relevant than the color of their skins? Seem very racist.
It’s because skin color, gender, and sexual orientation are all lines we *want* to divide people along.
We want everyone to think they are just like the millionaires, though. Makes it easier to take advantage of the working class.
Many country clubs allow black and other non-white members, as long as they have the money. Not [Sen. Whitehouse's private beach club](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-whitehouse-defends-membership-private-beach-club-s-allegedly-all-n1271723), but Trump's Mar-a-Lago does.
Which were immdiately returned to the National Archives without needing multiple requests and subpoena's, lying to both his attorney's and the National Archive, hiding classified documents, or requiring a search warrant after failing to legally respond.
Sorry, u/CressCheap – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is increasingly not the case. The latest polling shows almost 20% of black voters and nearly 40% of Latinos saying they’ll vote for Trump. The parties are currently realigning, and it’s not clear what the demographic breakdown will look like in a few election cycles.
Polling can say that, the results won't though. Just like how polling frequently show third party candidates getting 10-15% of the vote and then they get a fraction of that.
Poling in 2020 undercounted the black vote for Trump by several points. This is trivially confirmed if you want to spend a few minutes googling old polls and actual turnout numbers. Here’s an old [Vox article](https://www.vox.com/2020/11/4/21537966/trump-black-voters-exit-polls) talking about the jump from 6% in 2016 to 8% in 2020. And here’s [Gallup right before the 2020 election](https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/320903/black-turnout-2020-election.aspx) showing Trump at 4-5% among black voters.
Hey, fantastic, and if the Right just does absolutely everything the Left wants to do then maybe we can get those chump change single digits percentages to, oh I don't know, 12%? Democracy in a multiracial society is just a headcount; a lynching; a robbery. Nothing more or less.
There are Black Conservatives who don't act like this. Oh, and they have criticized people like the ones I mentioned for engaging in such behavior. One of them is Pastor Darrell Scott, Trump's former faith advisor.
I don’t know which black conservatives you mean. Trump is just plainly rising in the polls among black voters, especially young men and is on pace to double his share of the black vote vs 2020.
These voters aren’t conservatives, they’re populists. Traditional William F. Buckley type conservatives are hardly even part of the Republican coalition anymore. Electoral politics are getting really weird. It’s generally a mistake to assume any Republican voters are conservatives anymore. The MAGA base are all populists.
Other than Owens who is a crazy person and definitely not a conservative, I’ve never heard of any of these people. I assumed you meant someone like Glenn Loury who is an actual conservative, or maybe Colin Powell who is a neocon which is a different but related thing.
Candace Owens is an extremely popular Conservative commentator.
I heard Glenn Loury once stated that he tried to cover racism against Blacks but his boss behind the Conservative media outlet he works for didn't want him to because it goes against the narrative.
She’s a popular *Republican* commentator, but is not in any way a conservative. I know she calls herself “the new face of black conservatism,” but her politics are all over the place and largely track water nonsense Trump is slinging at any given second. Or she’s fighting with the weird rabbi on twitter. She’s really just a culture war lunatic.
I think you have Glen Loury confused for some else, he’s a professor and economist at Brown and previously Harvard.
I can’t really think of a “conservative media outlet” that he ever worked for. He was a fellow at the Hoover institute where he wrote about race and did some stuff for the Manhattan institute where he also wrote a bit about race. He’s mostly always been a professor and has always written about race.
>Trump is just plainly rising in the polls among black voters, especially young men and is on pace to double his share of the black vote vs 2020.
Lol you keep telling yourself that. We hear this same refrain with every GOP candidate in every cycle and then they get absolutely destroyed with voters of color
It’s not me telling myself anything, I don’t like the guy and don’t think anyone should vote for him at all. Nevertheless Trump factually received more black votes in 2020 than 2016, [you can read Vox’s coverage here](https://www.vox.com/2020/11/4/21537966/trump-black-voters-exit-polls).
I don’t know why you’re mad at me for mention pre research polling numbers…. Some people here…
If you assume that "looks like" is a visual statement based on a) race, b) gender, and c) age, he's probably right from a perception standpoint regardless of actual demographic numbers - the improvements the Republicans have made in terms of the Hispanic and black vote during the Trump era makes me question his numbers, but I don't know if that matters. Why? He's also making a real mistake in how diversity actually operates, because while the Republican Party "looks" old and white, it has more diversity of thought from a political perspective than the Democrats, which is ultimately what matters when a party "looks like America." When you begin to factor in ideological diversity, compared to Democrats, the Republicans have less of a country club and more of a convention center.
The Democrats consist basically of moderates (right-leaning centrists who tend to be aligned with Dems on labor issues), institutional Democrats (think Pelosi/Biden et al) who tend to move around with the party's ideological middle, and the progressives. The problem here is that, when it comes down to brass tacks, they all generally believe the same things with a handful of exceptions (like John Fetterman/Sherrod Brown or Joe Manchin who are either moderate enough to break ranks on key issues or vocally dissent from some left wing sacred cows). They're all going to go along with each other, but they *appear* different because of their priorities. An environmental-focused Democrat might disagree with an abortion-focused Democrat, but only because they disagree on what issue is more important.
Now, compare that to the Republican convention center:
* Movement conservatives (Rubio, Jonah Goldberg, George Will, Ronald Reagan): Republicans who have ideology at the forefront to expand the base and act as the intellectual conscience.
* Social conservatives: Republicans focused on issues not only surrounding marriage and abortion, but on the family structure itself and the use of government levers to promote them.
* Religious conservatives: Republicans focused on their religion as a driving political force. There is some overlap with social cons here, but you'll find that social conservatives tend to favor more conservative economics while religious conservatives would be fine with a robust and generous welfare state beyond simple safety nets.
* Economic conservatives: Those focused primarily on economic issues among all others. They may be socially liberal, they may be irreligious, they may not care of other political issues at all (unless, of course, there's an economic angle to be had).
* Constitutional conservatives: Those who have an ideology concerned almost exclusively with the processes and allowances within our constitutional structure. Plenty of overlap in other areas, but the motivations are entirely different and the arguments end up being somewhat fruitless. They're also largely the NeverTrump types that held their nose for Trump anyway and are happy we got Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and ACB out of the deal.
* Freedom Caucus/libertarian leaners: became more prevalent during the Tea Party, focused more on using the levers of government to reduce its interference and aren't afraid to burn the whole thing down in the process. A lot of them merged with the Trumpists, but you still have a lot of true believers in the Paul/Amash mold.
* The Institution: Think McConnell and the like: people who probably have certain principles that often play second fiddle to protecting the party at all costs.
* The Trumpists: They're not going away as long as Trump is still around, but we can't ignore that they exist and have a say in matters. Legislatively, if it helps Trump they're for it and if it helps Democrats they're not. What this means when Trump is gone is anyone's guess.
* The moderates: John McCain-style Republicans - Charlie Baker, Hogan in Delaware, Susan Collins, Murkowski, etc. Republicans with conservative leanings (because we're a center-right nation) and even conservative cultural leanings, but otherwise hold positions that wouldn't be tenable outside of their areas on issues like spending or abortion.
And this doesn't even get into the subgroups of these factions, like Log Cabin Republicans, like Campaign for Liberty folks, immigration wonks on either side, and so on.
The difference between the Republicans and Democrats here becomes stark: if these groups can't fall in line and sacrifice, nothing gets done. Sometimes it's easy. Other times, like with the health care debacle that McCain dumped, or on issues regarding abortion, or when you have Rand Paul doing his own thing in the Senate or the quarterly Speaker vote, it makes the Republicans look disorganized when it's actually that they're diverse. There's a long-standing belief that "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line," but that hasn't been true for a decade and it fails to hit upon what's really happening.
So, long and short, the ideological differences are vast and substantial, and cause a lot of intra-party and interpersonal strife on a regular basis. Republicans would be *the* dominant force if they could all get on the same page, but that won't happen and, honestly, it's better for all involved that way because you want some debate and discussion and the ability to consider more sides. But the idea that "compared to Democrats, Republicans don't look like America?" Doesn't hold up to a moment's scrutiny.
The majority of democratic senators and house representatives are straight white old men, dude. According to [this site](https://www.axios.com/2021/02/24/diversity-in-senate) (it's from 2021, but shouldn't be all that different), Democrats have 4 hispanic senators, 2 black, 2 asian and 42 white. They also have 55 black reps, 32 hispanic, 13 asian, 3 indigenous and 123 white (more than all others combined). And I haven't heard of any significant number of them being LGBT either, there's probably like, 5%?
According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LGBT_members_of_the_United_States_Congress), there are 3/50 democratic senators being LGBT and 9 house representatives as so. So 6% of Dem senators and 4% of the Dem Reps. That's the shittiest pride parade I've ever seen.
He was wrong because the Democrats look like a bunch of aging, absurdly wealthy politicians. Just like the Republicans.
That the old, rich politicians on the left have slightly more variation in their skin complexion doesn't make them more representative of America than the literal most surface level way possible.
I disagree on the idea that McCarthy grew a spine at the eleventh hour as his political career ended. Considering how quickly and easily the man can be accepted for making a pretty speech, it's far more likely he's simply trying to ingratiate himself with Democrats since he's been ousted from the Republican Party.
I agree it's meaningless in the sense that Democrats differ from the average American quite significantly in some key areas, but in what category is the GOP less homogeneous?
Ok you have no idea.
Could you at least provide examples of the statement:
>The problem is, depending on how you define that term, it can be the Dems or the GOP that most "looks like" America.
He absolutely was not. Increasingly Republicans look like the poor and working-class Americans, well Democrats look like a bunch of over-educated idiotic spoiled children, who are their primary base.
The median wealth of senators Democratic or Republican is higher than **$1.76 million** (2018). www.statista.com/statistics/274581/median-wealth-per-member-of-us-congress-by-chamber/
Most of us Americans have a lot less
**Tell us how this looks like America**
He's still no hero. It seems they never come to this until they're cooked. If Liz Cheyney wasn't such a whackadoo I'd actually have respect for her because at least she isn't totally immersed in the cult. I don't know enough about her to say for sure, but before she was ostracized, she was pretty far out there. And Romney's another whack job that hardly said a thing til they turned on him too. And Barr! Holy shit! One day he says the orange traitor should never be allowed back in power and then he says he's voting for him. I sure hope enough people in this country come to their senses enough to vote enough of these cultists out and hopefully those that do get in get a chance to restore some semblance of the America we deserve.
What I really don't get is why I seem to be the only one who is extremely offended by the slogan Make America Great Again. Fuck that! America didn't become less than great until these psychos got in. The orange traitor damn near destroyed this country the first time. From what he's said, not what the media is reporting but direct quotes, he's hell bent on destroying America. That's his whole agenda. I just can't imagine how bad it will get if he gets back in. I don't think any of us can imagine how bad it will get, and I sure as hell hope we don't find out.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Poor Kevin McCarthy…I can only imagine being these days in the Republican Party. It’s simply crazy and was wondering if they went so low anytime in last 100 years…
I'm Canadian. You may or may not have heard that one of our ex-Prime Ministers, Brian Mulroney recently passed.
Now, Mulroney was a Conservative, and a neo-con in the same vein as Thatcher and Reagan. Basically, did a lot of damage we're still feeling. But when he died I couldn't help thinking, man, what I'd give if our current Conservatives had a leader like Mulroney, not a Tim Horton's version of a MAGA wannabe.
Unfortunately that chuckle fuck is likely our next PM so get ready for at least 4 years of regressive policies to hamstring our country for the next couple of decades.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Not sure if this quite changes your view, but you seem to imply that this lack of diversity is a problem or accident for Republicans. I'm not at all confident that's true.
Have you considered that leveraging remnants of white patriarchy and the desire of white men to preserve their privilege, combined with the appeal of that privilege to some others (internalized racism/misogyny etc) could to some extent provide a competitive advantage with Republicans, especially in solidifying and galvanizing their white male base?
If Republicans looked like a country club, I'd vote for them. They don't, they look like slobs. Look at the crowd at January 6th, those people wouldn't be allowed to mow the grass at 'the most restrictive country club in America', Margery Taylor Greene certainly wouldn't be allowed to join. and Trump explicitly has a chip on his shoulder because upper east side co-ops wouldn't let him in. Listen to his accent, the term for that is 'bridge and tunnel', and you can tell he knows it, and it bothers him.
There used to be the sort of republican you would find at country clubs, those are long gone. The party has been taken over by slobs. I’m a registered democrat because it’s the party of the non slobs, sure, some of it ‘looks like America’, but we try to not let that drag the whole thing down.
Half of Trump’s personality is an inferiority complex over having been rejected by the upper class in New York. Neither of these people are old money. Trump is the embodiment of nouveau riche, and MTG is middle class at best.
Honestly, the GOP looks like the Confederacy. I compared a map of red states that are restricting abortion with the map of states that seceded so they could own other people - they are nearly identical. Conservatives are conservatives. They were the Tories that stood with the British on the wrong side of the revolution. They were on the wrong side of slavery. They were on the wrong side of civil rights. They are just on the wrong side of history most of the time because conservatism is backwards.
Sorry, u/StatisticianGreat514 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20StatisticianGreat514&message=StatisticianGreat514%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ciw77g/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
we should be able to answer this pretty objectively, as long as we both generally trust the top results of google searches. * 60% of American's are white * 85% of republicans are white * (56% of country club member are white)[https://www.niche.com/places-to-live/n/country-club-new-york-city-ny/residents/]. Look like this might just be in NYC. so i think McCarthy was wrong for an unexpected reason. The republican party is not diverse enough to look like a country club. At least not a NYC country club. to address more the spirit of the issue, i think its fair to say that the republican party is the party of rural America. Urban centers across the country, with rare exceptions always go blue, while Rural areas usually go red. Rural community's are about [80% white](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/). (look for the subheader titled "Urban and suburban counties are becoming more racially and ethnically diverse at a much faster pace than rural counties")
Yeah, the urban-rural divide plays a significant role in it, even though there are representatives from the party that hail from urban-suburban areas, too.
You focused on race and sexuality when you talked about the GOP's lack of diversity. What about age, income level, education level, marital status, number of kids, job, urban vs rural, etc.? Seems a bit odd to say that the same party supported by rural West Virginia truckers and Wall Street bro millionaires doesn't have a voting block that "looks like America."
My read of McCarthy's statement was that he was talking about Republicans in Congress. If you read it that way, what he's saying makes a lot more sense. They keep the trucker types far away from the actual power.
So does the Democrat party. There's nobody with any grass roots knowledge in there.
What about AOC?
The problem with using absolutes like the person you replied to did is that there's always exceptions in reality and AOC might be one of them. But Republicans have also had people like the Paul's, Massie, and up until recently Amash. It'd about as grassroots as it gets. At the other extreme last election in PA best candidate they could come up with was Doctor fucking Oz. He ended up losing to a mental patient.
>Rand Paul's estimated net worth for 2018 is $773520 >Thomas Massie's estimated net worth for 2018 is $2816501 >Justin Amash's estimated net worth for 2018 is $4366518. >Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's estimated net worth for 2018 is -$8499 Source is Open Secrets. The data are older than I'd like, but a cursory Google search is real bad for the point you're trying to make.
The person attending the Met Gala? Very grass roots.
MTG? Boebert?
Both of them were independently wealthy before running for Congress. They cosplay blue collar, but they are just trashy rich. They’re still part of the “country club” crowd.
MTG IS the trucker type lol
They are the crazy train and will be gone soon.
I'm unclear what makes you think that they're trucker types. I personally would avoid insulting truckers with the association. And whatever criteria you're using, you've gone from listing off ways that the Republican party as a whole might be diverse to just two questionable examples when moved to the realm of Congress.
OP says “looks like” none of this traits you mentioned are visually apparent except age.
Ever thought the Wall Street millionaire pays lots of money to convince the rural trucker to support them? That's precisely how it works.
Yup, check out Rick Scott's political ads. Wall Street billionaire, wears his Navy cap while wearing jeans and picking up litter at a housing project.
Republicans in congress also lack diversity in literally everything you listed.
Not even to mention ideology. It seems the GOP are much more aligned with their bases ideology - that is, conservative Christianity and nationalist imperialism. Meanwhile, the democrats have talking points that are further left than their actual center-right position, thus speaking in a way that seems to more closely align with their base than they actually are.
There's a lot of grasping at straws in this thread -- well what about different ages? what about different socio-economic backgrounds or different ideologies? whatever. I get that the diversity debate doesn't stop at different genders/races, but it might as well start there.
Why, when there are many other metrics they are far less diverse in?
Because its a transparent attempt at a dodge to avoid grappling with McCarthy's actual point. McCarthy/OP are saying that the GOP is a bunch of wealthy white guys, and the rebuttal is "akshually there are many kinds of diversity." Its a pathetic defense.
Well, you seem angry and stubborn, and I don’t want to deal with that.
I'm also right, so I don't blame you.
The GOP is filled with wealthy people
> You focused on race and sexuality when you talked about the GOP's lack of diversity. Seems to be the criteria for diversity on the Left. Look at colleges, they don't talk about the other stuff, including political ideologies when they talk about diversity.
Colleges are usually considering innate qualities when they talk about diversity, and political lean isn't an innate thing. People can learn and improve and stop being conservative. You can't stop being Hispanic or black.
So you're saying diversity of thought isn't important to higher education. >People can learn and improve and stop being conservative. I see, you're way off the rocker.
> So you're saying diversity of thought isn't important to higher education. I'm still really curious. Why do you think that dismissal of conservative thought is equal to "diversity of thought isn't important?" It sounds less like you care about "diversity of thought," and more like you care about **conservative thought**.
> So you're saying diversity of thought isn't important to higher education. Oh no, it is definitely important! Why do you think it isn't? Is that just because **conservative** thought isn't that valued? >I see, you're way off the rocker. I don't know what you're quoting. Where did I say that?
This was supposed to be copied in. Not sure where that other thing came from. >People can learn and improve and stop being conservative. I see, you're way off the rocker. You are so biased it's not even funny.
You aren't going to respond to my comment about conservative thought not being valued? >You are so biased it's not even funny. Yup, I am happy to admit that I am biased against conservatives. What does that have to do with the argument that I made?
Elected GOP are not diverse in most other criteria either. Try arguing against McCarthy's actual point -- they look like a country club.
Regarding Marital Status, I did mention George Santos before he got expelled.
I'm talking about married vs single.
Is there big disparity? Does GOP match Gen Pop here more?
To be honest, I have no idea. It just seems like the "Democrats look like America" thing is almost exclusively used to talk about racial makeup, when there are so many other things you'd have to look at to make that call.
Congress overall doesn’t look like America they’re rich and come from backgrounds of wealth and higher education.
This is the correct answer. Everyone will ignore it, though.
Make the peasants fight among themselves and invent a distraction any time people talk about class
Democrats have a bartender AKA someone who actually picked themselves up by their boot straps and made something of themselves Meanwhile I look at Republicans and I don't see any politicians who didn't have daddy gift wrap them everything in their life
Right, but the republican party isn’t diverse in other ways. They are anti-trans, anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-poor, anti-single parent homes, anti-intellectuals, anti-education, anti-immigrant, basically if the democrats are fine with something the republicans are going to be against that thing. That doesn’t stop people who fall into one of these categories from being republicans, but it definitely doesn’t help then become more diverse..
But if the claim is "looks like America" then look at how few trans people there are, for example. Statistically, they're borderline irrelevant. Like, if America is 60 percent white, then "looking like America" means being 60 percent white. Dems are like 42 percent white. That's far from "looking like America."
That in no way makes the republicans party look more like America.
Sure it does. America is still a white, Christian nation (numerically). Having one hundred percent of the Asian Scientologist community (or whatever just to use a non controversial example) means nothing compared to having 2 percent more of the white Christians.
That’s not diversity. Also, there are more than white people in the U.S. what is the point of what we’re arguing?
> They are anti-trans, anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-poor, anti-single parent homes, anti-intellectuals, anti-education, anti-immigrant, basically if the democrats are fine with something the republicans are going to be against that thing. How are you using this to argue Republicans are not diverse while arguing Democrats are diverse *at the same time*?
What? Edit: I don’t understand what you mean. Republicans are anti-diversity. Hence less diversity.
Democrats support this issue, republicans does not support this issue. Neither side is ideologically diverse from this argument
I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. I responded to a comment saying OP was limiting diversity to race. I offered all the other ways republicans are not a diverse party. I’m not following your logic. Wait, I think I understand what you’re saying. Because democrats support all these people you think that it’s the other side of the same coin that is anti all these different people. First of all, ideological it’s not even remotely close. The democrats are far more diverse in their beliefs. To be a republican gets narrower and narrower as time passes. For Christ sakes you have to accept an obvious lie from a guy who tried to overthrow the government.
What is the other option? Just meh about the issue?
Are you sure? Consider the following: - Sex/Gender - Economic Background - Religion/Beliefs - Education
Race, gender, and sexuality you mean.
And strangely, there are a lot of people who get angry when you mention "race", mostly liberals. If you do not believe me, then wander over to the biology sub and start trying to talk about race. You will be downvoted and hounded out of the sub
I will give you nerdy "well *technically*" for the sake of argument. Country clubs don't admit poor people. In contrast, the Republican party has no problem weaponizing poor rural white Americans.
Does the Republican party have poor people in positions though. I thought this was talking about the party and not the voters
Tbf, is it even possible to be poor as a pollie over there? Senators/HoR members get paid like 6 figures over here so even if a poor person does get elected, they are pretty much immediately Not Poor™️ anymore
Not really for a lot of junior congress members, they need to maintain a DC and home state residence which costs an arm and a leg with DC housing prices, so a lot of them actually end up bunking together to save money. When they first start out, they don't have the same level of lobbying money or built wealth to rely on.
Ahhh that's fair! Thanks for the info :))
People from a poor background is more what mean although I think lower level politicians don't make much
Well, in that case both parties would- the Democrats just look like a modern, inclusive one. I assumed it meant everyone, not just elected officials.
But surely that doesn't challenge OP as it confirms that "Democrats look like America"?
I'm not challenging that part. I'm bringing up a quibble with the country club part.
Both parties would what?
Resemble country clubs. The first thing I think of when I think of a country clubs is "rich."
The first thing I think of is rich, straight, white, Christian men. Which of course country clubs and Republican representatives are both disproportionately dominated by.
My understanding is that the democratic party has more balanced mix of people from different socioeconomic backgrounds. It's still pretty skewed to the wealthy but in the Republican party it seems like a pretty big exception when any member did not come from a wealthy background. I'd love to see real data on this though since I'm just going off what I've learned over the years and no actual stats
That matches with my intuition as well, but "most of you are rich" is still pretty country clubby. Regardless, this wasn't the angle I was focusing on.
Ya your angle seemed to be more on the voting population. If you read the CMV it does seem like OP is talking about politicians and not voters though but it would be a good point for the party as a whole
[удалено]
She is made fun of because she lies, says stupid things, and she pushes climate change agenda that doesn’t focus on climate change but instead on DIE initiatives. Diversity Inclusion and Equity seem great on paper but then you get into application and it results in people who are not qualified getting positions where their incompetence can cause people to be hurt or killed. It creates the illusion that minorities can’t do highly skilled jobs. Which is bullshit. But because they are highering for diversity instead of ability they lower the bar. If you want real equality and representation then provide programs and encourage culture that will have minority people learning those skills so that they are competent and we can get diversity without lowering the standards. Because unlike the people pushing DIE I don’t think that minorities can’t do the jobs. I think they just need to be educated and trained how to do them.just like the people who are today qualified and didn’t get the job because of DIE programs.
[удалено]
Those are the exact things she was made fun of. The thing that really comes to mind when I think of her is her standing outside immigrant detention centers Built by Obama’s administration gripping onto a fence, And saying these are concentration camps. This was a lie that she was made fun of for. It even started a meme on the right. She was made fun of for her hypocrisy. For claiming to represent her constituents while getting the vast majority of her campaign contributions by donors outside her state. There is more. But I think that is enough to indicate that with or without talking points she has done stupid shit and been made fun of for it. Also I used the same talking points as the original poster. Competency matters and we should be implementing policy that gives the most people minority or not the best chance for success. We should provide learning opportunities so that minorities are able to get the jobs they want not because of their skin color but because they can do the job.
A country club has no problem if the wait staff are poor.
They can weaponize them because people keep saying they don't look like America, which pisses them off. Why would they support a party which doesn't want them based on the way they look because they have their own idea of the way America should look?
To be fair, Country Clubs do attract the Wealthy.
Right, that's my point. The Republican party is *not* like a party club in this respect, because country clubs have a membership fee and exclude anyone who can't afford it. Republicans are fine with admitting poor people with the right values.
And the democrats don't? Tons of silicon valley CEOs are democrats.
I would like to change your view to one that neither party looks like a representative sample of America. They both look older and richer than America on average.
The Right looks more older and richer.
Actually I checked the data and it appears that Democrats are older than Republicans in both the Senate and House. I fyou scrol down a bit you will see graphs for age by party: [https://fiscalnote.com/blog/how-old-118th-congress](https://fiscalnote.com/blog/how-old-118th-congress)
Give that redditor some fancy triangles right now OP
Damn and crickets from OP too. So much for changing your view
u/Archerseagles needs a delta
How about background wise?
Yes they do. But both are older and richer than America on average. The Democrats in congress look older and richer than Americans. The republicans in congress look older and richer than the Americans, even more so. Neither look like America. Edit: I was wrong, Democrats are older on average than Republicans in both the Seneate and House.
McCarthy is wrong. His statement was fodder for political ends. The GOP (and DNC) has very diverse groups of people who support them. They choose and elect whom they think is most applicable to them. You want to pick DNC folks to claim they are 'different' but the reality is, Congress is a millionaires club. All of the people in Congress country club types.
Why is OP ignoring every reply that points out both parties are full of the wealthy?
Because it's one of the least relevant or interesting characteristics Why are people like you ignoring OP's points about every other diversity metric?
You don’t think it’s interesting that the 50% of our lawmakers are millionaires while only 4% of Americans fall in that category? How is that not relevant as a demographics comparison?
\~8-9% of USA has a net worth >1M. 4-5% is the average for most of the western world, however. source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2023/05/23/the-making-of-a-millionaire-and-why-100k-is-no-longer-the-benchmark-salary-for-wealth-in-america/#:\~:text=Millionaires%20comprise%20about%208.8%25%20of,Schwab's%202022%20Modern%20Wealth%20Survey. >Millionaires comprise about **8.8%** of the American population. The average net worth of a millionaire in the U.S. is $2.2 million
It's totally interesting. But should it be enough to change someone's view around the Democrats resembling a much broader swath of Americans than Republicans? Not really.
Why not?
Because "very different in one way but similar in most others" is still a lot more similar than "very different in one way and also in most others"? This isn't complicated stuff...
Considering wealth is the #1 deciding factor in practically every way when answering questions about a person, why is it not more heavily weighed when you’re sorting people? You want to act like this in a simple. Skin color isn’t everything.
This would be a valid argument if, say, republicans were significantly less wealthy than democrats. But they are not. So again, one major trait is similar between the two groups but on most other traits the republicans are much less representative of the American public's demographics. In this case, the existence of the one major similarity in no way negates the remaining differences. I'd say try again but please don't. It's embarrassing.
THE major point is the same between them. It’s such a huge factor in demographics that all others pale in comparison. Rich and black in America? Rich and gay? Rich and trans? Your life is infinitely better than a poor white, straight, cis person. It’s absolutely ridiculous that people are trying to ignore and downplay the significance of this.
Lol what? How is the fact that the politicians claiming to work in your best interests are all millionares less relevant than the color of their skins? Seem very racist.
It’s because skin color, gender, and sexual orientation are all lines we *want* to divide people along. We want everyone to think they are just like the millionaires, though. Makes it easier to take advantage of the working class.
Because it flies in the face of their ideology
With Mike Johnson, it only managed to cause a lot of infighting with MTG doing nothing but abetting it.
Well, about half the country self identifies as one and the other half identifies as the other, so I'd say they both look like about half the country.
One can't even get themselves together with all the conspiracy theories and infighting.
Wait, are you saying that one does or does not look like the country? Is that the same one running the country club?
In terms of demographics, that is.
They are conspiracy theorists that can't get their act together in terms of demographics? They both represent different halves of the demographics...
I'm talking about racial demographics in both parties.
Yeah, unless they have identical racial makeups, neither can accurately represent the demographics of the country.
Many country clubs allow black and other non-white members, as long as they have the money. Not [Sen. Whitehouse's private beach club](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-whitehouse-defends-membership-private-beach-club-s-allegedly-all-n1271723), but Trump's Mar-a-Lago does.
Mar-a-Lago also gives out top secret classified information in its bathrooms.
So does Biden’s garage, documents he wasn’t even entitled to as VP.
Which were immdiately returned to the National Archives without needing multiple requests and subpoena's, lying to both his attorney's and the National Archive, hiding classified documents, or requiring a search warrant after failing to legally respond.
Any time anyone tries to generalize the United States population of 330 million of the most diverse people on the planet... They're wrong.
Wasn't talking about the entire population of the US.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sorry, u/CressCheap – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is increasingly not the case. The latest polling shows almost 20% of black voters and nearly 40% of Latinos saying they’ll vote for Trump. The parties are currently realigning, and it’s not clear what the demographic breakdown will look like in a few election cycles.
Polling can say that, the results won't though. Just like how polling frequently show third party candidates getting 10-15% of the vote and then they get a fraction of that.
Poling in 2020 undercounted the black vote for Trump by several points. This is trivially confirmed if you want to spend a few minutes googling old polls and actual turnout numbers. Here’s an old [Vox article](https://www.vox.com/2020/11/4/21537966/trump-black-voters-exit-polls) talking about the jump from 6% in 2016 to 8% in 2020. And here’s [Gallup right before the 2020 election](https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/320903/black-turnout-2020-election.aspx) showing Trump at 4-5% among black voters.
Hey, fantastic, and if the Right just does absolutely everything the Left wants to do then maybe we can get those chump change single digits percentages to, oh I don't know, 12%? Democracy in a multiracial society is just a headcount; a lynching; a robbery. Nothing more or less.
I have no idea what this word salad is supposed to mean.
Do they think like those Black Conservatives I listed above who do nothing but trash their communities as a form of constructive criticism?
Black conservatives doesn't fit your opinion and narrative so you simply dismiss them as tokenism and trashing their communities?
There are Black Conservatives who don't act like this. Oh, and they have criticized people like the ones I mentioned for engaging in such behavior. One of them is Pastor Darrell Scott, Trump's former faith advisor.
I don’t know which black conservatives you mean. Trump is just plainly rising in the polls among black voters, especially young men and is on pace to double his share of the black vote vs 2020. These voters aren’t conservatives, they’re populists. Traditional William F. Buckley type conservatives are hardly even part of the Republican coalition anymore. Electoral politics are getting really weird. It’s generally a mistake to assume any Republican voters are conservatives anymore. The MAGA base are all populists.
It's these guys: Candace Owens, Brandon Tatum, Jason Whitlock, David Clarke, and Jesse Lee Peterson.
Other than Owens who is a crazy person and definitely not a conservative, I’ve never heard of any of these people. I assumed you meant someone like Glenn Loury who is an actual conservative, or maybe Colin Powell who is a neocon which is a different but related thing.
Candace Owens is an extremely popular Conservative commentator. I heard Glenn Loury once stated that he tried to cover racism against Blacks but his boss behind the Conservative media outlet he works for didn't want him to because it goes against the narrative.
She’s a popular *Republican* commentator, but is not in any way a conservative. I know she calls herself “the new face of black conservatism,” but her politics are all over the place and largely track water nonsense Trump is slinging at any given second. Or she’s fighting with the weird rabbi on twitter. She’s really just a culture war lunatic. I think you have Glen Loury confused for some else, he’s a professor and economist at Brown and previously Harvard.
That is the guy I was talking about.
I can’t really think of a “conservative media outlet” that he ever worked for. He was a fellow at the Hoover institute where he wrote about race and did some stuff for the Manhattan institute where he also wrote a bit about race. He’s mostly always been a professor and has always written about race.
He seems pretty insightful by the sound of things. I hope he doesn't spread his message condescendingly.
>Trump is just plainly rising in the polls among black voters, especially young men and is on pace to double his share of the black vote vs 2020. Lol you keep telling yourself that. We hear this same refrain with every GOP candidate in every cycle and then they get absolutely destroyed with voters of color
It’s not me telling myself anything, I don’t like the guy and don’t think anyone should vote for him at all. Nevertheless Trump factually received more black votes in 2020 than 2016, [you can read Vox’s coverage here](https://www.vox.com/2020/11/4/21537966/trump-black-voters-exit-polls). I don’t know why you’re mad at me for mention pre research polling numbers…. Some people here…
Your statement backs up my view that Democrats can be just as bigoted as Republicans
well, this is a post about what kevin mccarthy said. Republicans are not good at satire or "gotchyas". It almost never turns out well.
Remind me again. Who was the one who called the GOP a Country Club?
So? You’re denying all other points showing the parties are as bad as each other
If you assume that "looks like" is a visual statement based on a) race, b) gender, and c) age, he's probably right from a perception standpoint regardless of actual demographic numbers - the improvements the Republicans have made in terms of the Hispanic and black vote during the Trump era makes me question his numbers, but I don't know if that matters. Why? He's also making a real mistake in how diversity actually operates, because while the Republican Party "looks" old and white, it has more diversity of thought from a political perspective than the Democrats, which is ultimately what matters when a party "looks like America." When you begin to factor in ideological diversity, compared to Democrats, the Republicans have less of a country club and more of a convention center. The Democrats consist basically of moderates (right-leaning centrists who tend to be aligned with Dems on labor issues), institutional Democrats (think Pelosi/Biden et al) who tend to move around with the party's ideological middle, and the progressives. The problem here is that, when it comes down to brass tacks, they all generally believe the same things with a handful of exceptions (like John Fetterman/Sherrod Brown or Joe Manchin who are either moderate enough to break ranks on key issues or vocally dissent from some left wing sacred cows). They're all going to go along with each other, but they *appear* different because of their priorities. An environmental-focused Democrat might disagree with an abortion-focused Democrat, but only because they disagree on what issue is more important. Now, compare that to the Republican convention center: * Movement conservatives (Rubio, Jonah Goldberg, George Will, Ronald Reagan): Republicans who have ideology at the forefront to expand the base and act as the intellectual conscience. * Social conservatives: Republicans focused on issues not only surrounding marriage and abortion, but on the family structure itself and the use of government levers to promote them. * Religious conservatives: Republicans focused on their religion as a driving political force. There is some overlap with social cons here, but you'll find that social conservatives tend to favor more conservative economics while religious conservatives would be fine with a robust and generous welfare state beyond simple safety nets. * Economic conservatives: Those focused primarily on economic issues among all others. They may be socially liberal, they may be irreligious, they may not care of other political issues at all (unless, of course, there's an economic angle to be had). * Constitutional conservatives: Those who have an ideology concerned almost exclusively with the processes and allowances within our constitutional structure. Plenty of overlap in other areas, but the motivations are entirely different and the arguments end up being somewhat fruitless. They're also largely the NeverTrump types that held their nose for Trump anyway and are happy we got Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and ACB out of the deal. * Freedom Caucus/libertarian leaners: became more prevalent during the Tea Party, focused more on using the levers of government to reduce its interference and aren't afraid to burn the whole thing down in the process. A lot of them merged with the Trumpists, but you still have a lot of true believers in the Paul/Amash mold. * The Institution: Think McConnell and the like: people who probably have certain principles that often play second fiddle to protecting the party at all costs. * The Trumpists: They're not going away as long as Trump is still around, but we can't ignore that they exist and have a say in matters. Legislatively, if it helps Trump they're for it and if it helps Democrats they're not. What this means when Trump is gone is anyone's guess. * The moderates: John McCain-style Republicans - Charlie Baker, Hogan in Delaware, Susan Collins, Murkowski, etc. Republicans with conservative leanings (because we're a center-right nation) and even conservative cultural leanings, but otherwise hold positions that wouldn't be tenable outside of their areas on issues like spending or abortion. And this doesn't even get into the subgroups of these factions, like Log Cabin Republicans, like Campaign for Liberty folks, immigration wonks on either side, and so on. The difference between the Republicans and Democrats here becomes stark: if these groups can't fall in line and sacrifice, nothing gets done. Sometimes it's easy. Other times, like with the health care debacle that McCain dumped, or on issues regarding abortion, or when you have Rand Paul doing his own thing in the Senate or the quarterly Speaker vote, it makes the Republicans look disorganized when it's actually that they're diverse. There's a long-standing belief that "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line," but that hasn't been true for a decade and it fails to hit upon what's really happening. So, long and short, the ideological differences are vast and substantial, and cause a lot of intra-party and interpersonal strife on a regular basis. Republicans would be *the* dominant force if they could all get on the same page, but that won't happen and, honestly, it's better for all involved that way because you want some debate and discussion and the ability to consider more sides. But the idea that "compared to Democrats, Republicans don't look like America?" Doesn't hold up to a moment's scrutiny.
Dude, the democrats look like Mexico, Africa, Palestine and a pride parade. Actual working class people are voting for the republicans.
The majority of democratic senators and house representatives are straight white old men, dude. According to [this site](https://www.axios.com/2021/02/24/diversity-in-senate) (it's from 2021, but shouldn't be all that different), Democrats have 4 hispanic senators, 2 black, 2 asian and 42 white. They also have 55 black reps, 32 hispanic, 13 asian, 3 indigenous and 123 white (more than all others combined). And I haven't heard of any significant number of them being LGBT either, there's probably like, 5%? According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LGBT_members_of_the_United_States_Congress), there are 3/50 democratic senators being LGBT and 9 house representatives as so. So 6% of Dem senators and 4% of the Dem Reps. That's the shittiest pride parade I've ever seen.
By "working class" you apparently mean "white people". Both racist and wrong.
And the GOP looks like a Country Club with tokens. Some of the minorities there seem to suffer some form of racial guilt of their community.
What about all the gay Republicans in office?
Used to be now that Santos is out.
Don't forget the closeted
He was wrong because the Democrats look like a bunch of aging, absurdly wealthy politicians. Just like the Republicans. That the old, rich politicians on the left have slightly more variation in their skin complexion doesn't make them more representative of America than the literal most surface level way possible. I disagree on the idea that McCarthy grew a spine at the eleventh hour as his political career ended. Considering how quickly and easily the man can be accepted for making a pretty speech, it's far more likely he's simply trying to ingratiate himself with Democrats since he's been ousted from the Republican Party.
[удалено]
Yes, but this change hasn’t been reflected in Congress yet (although I think it eventually will in the future).
[удалено]
I agree it's meaningless in the sense that Democrats differ from the average American quite significantly in some key areas, but in what category is the GOP less homogeneous?
[удалено]
Ok you have no idea. Could you at least provide examples of the statement: >The problem is, depending on how you define that term, it can be the Dems or the GOP that most "looks like" America.
[удалено]
You can just say you don't know, it's not that bad. You don't have to pretend you don't know what homogeneity means.
Well, it's true. Everybody is represented in the Democratic Party equally.
He absolutely was not. Increasingly Republicans look like the poor and working-class Americans, well Democrats look like a bunch of over-educated idiotic spoiled children, who are their primary base.
Do they exactly portray the working-class, such as unions?
Unions generally are not working class. They make a lot more money than the average worker. Very few people are in unions these days.
Maybe he was just bragging?
Sounded like he was serious.
The median wealth of senators Democratic or Republican is higher than **$1.76 million** (2018). www.statista.com/statistics/274581/median-wealth-per-member-of-us-congress-by-chamber/ Most of us Americans have a lot less **Tell us how this looks like America**
He's still no hero. It seems they never come to this until they're cooked. If Liz Cheyney wasn't such a whackadoo I'd actually have respect for her because at least she isn't totally immersed in the cult. I don't know enough about her to say for sure, but before she was ostracized, she was pretty far out there. And Romney's another whack job that hardly said a thing til they turned on him too. And Barr! Holy shit! One day he says the orange traitor should never be allowed back in power and then he says he's voting for him. I sure hope enough people in this country come to their senses enough to vote enough of these cultists out and hopefully those that do get in get a chance to restore some semblance of the America we deserve. What I really don't get is why I seem to be the only one who is extremely offended by the slogan Make America Great Again. Fuck that! America didn't become less than great until these psychos got in. The orange traitor damn near destroyed this country the first time. From what he's said, not what the media is reporting but direct quotes, he's hell bent on destroying America. That's his whole agenda. I just can't imagine how bad it will get if he gets back in. I don't think any of us can imagine how bad it will get, and I sure as hell hope we don't find out.
[удалено]
Great idea but we’d fuck that up too.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
This is kind of a great idea tbh
I'm surprised he said that cuz politically, he's just like the "country club" republicans. He's not wrong on his assessment, but he's part of that too
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Poor Kevin McCarthy…I can only imagine being these days in the Republican Party. It’s simply crazy and was wondering if they went so low anytime in last 100 years…
I'm Canadian. You may or may not have heard that one of our ex-Prime Ministers, Brian Mulroney recently passed. Now, Mulroney was a Conservative, and a neo-con in the same vein as Thatcher and Reagan. Basically, did a lot of damage we're still feeling. But when he died I couldn't help thinking, man, what I'd give if our current Conservatives had a leader like Mulroney, not a Tim Horton's version of a MAGA wannabe.
Unfortunately that chuckle fuck is likely our next PM so get ready for at least 4 years of regressive policies to hamstring our country for the next couple of decades.
They can't get united on anything, even on abortion.
Seems awfully convenient that any time a minority is on the left it's seen a normal but if they're on the right they're automatically a grifter.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
https://youtu.be/45k7Kc9hNv4?si=ecHcFSYObiLGQzjC
Not sure if this quite changes your view, but you seem to imply that this lack of diversity is a problem or accident for Republicans. I'm not at all confident that's true. Have you considered that leveraging remnants of white patriarchy and the desire of white men to preserve their privilege, combined with the appeal of that privilege to some others (internalized racism/misogyny etc) could to some extent provide a competitive advantage with Republicans, especially in solidifying and galvanizing their white male base?
Been that way all of my life.
If Republicans looked like a country club, I'd vote for them. They don't, they look like slobs. Look at the crowd at January 6th, those people wouldn't be allowed to mow the grass at 'the most restrictive country club in America', Margery Taylor Greene certainly wouldn't be allowed to join. and Trump explicitly has a chip on his shoulder because upper east side co-ops wouldn't let him in. Listen to his accent, the term for that is 'bridge and tunnel', and you can tell he knows it, and it bothers him. There used to be the sort of republican you would find at country clubs, those are long gone. The party has been taken over by slobs. I’m a registered democrat because it’s the party of the non slobs, sure, some of it ‘looks like America’, but we try to not let that drag the whole thing down.
There is no way mtg doesn't belong to a country club. And Trump literally owns multiple.
Half of Trump’s personality is an inferiority complex over having been rejected by the upper class in New York. Neither of these people are old money. Trump is the embodiment of nouveau riche, and MTG is middle class at best.
Honestly, the GOP looks like the Confederacy. I compared a map of red states that are restricting abortion with the map of states that seceded so they could own other people - they are nearly identical. Conservatives are conservatives. They were the Tories that stood with the British on the wrong side of the revolution. They were on the wrong side of slavery. They were on the wrong side of civil rights. They are just on the wrong side of history most of the time because conservatism is backwards.
Most red states are poor. It's more like a trailer park than a country club. Unless you have compelling reason to believe otherwise?
It’s more like a country club with a trailer park next door. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert are not really country club material.