U.S. White Population Will Be Minority by 2042, Government Says

Ah boo you, stupid topics like this deserve stupid comments do they not? And by pigmentation I meant that biologically speaking black people have more menalin ( pigment) than white people but it doesn't set them apart as human beings as we are all one race, the human race and we all have faults. What sets us apart from animals is not our intellegence but how arrogant and self deluded we are to believe that some of us are better than others just based on outward appearance and the fact that we have to kill/ discriminate/ alienate others that don't fit in with social 'norms'.....

Well I guess these are just some of your run-of-the-mill white people.

Newsflash: there's more to race than skin pigmentation.

But the thing about america is that it is very difficult for "social climbing" - in britain it is much more economically viable for a student with no household income to go to university than an average student.Not that i agree with this system - but it allows social climbing - everybody has the oppourtunity to go to university - everybody does. Yet in america it is much more expensive. The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. So poor immigrants are (as a general rule of thumb - and by this im saying not all) - are going to remain poor, rich white families are going to stay rich white families. So as the white population declines, "ethnic" minorities increase is it going to leave completely segregated rich white families and the rest of society or is it going to open up and there be big social change?

Actually the Jewish people have contributed to the development of the country, I don't care if their population increases 20 fold because they believe in democracy, freedom and law.

Alot of the jews are from european countries and have similar values.

Aha. BRING ON 2042.

We're all sick of the racist bastards, anyway. The ones who matter won't mind and the ones who mind will slowly disappear in years to come.

I agree with you, I just wish the American Jews didn't vote the way they do. In every election since I can remember, something like 80% of the for for democrats

I think many Jews are afraid of going right wing with their votes, because the further right you get the more likely you are to be anti-Semitic (e.g., BNP, Nazi party). It's a justified fear, methinks.

Maybe that's how it works in your country. In the USA, left is anti-Israel, and the the right is vehemently pro-Israel. That's what makes the way US jews vote so peculiar. The strongest supporters of Israel in the US are the evangelical Christians. Orthadox jews tend to vote republican, but they are a minority within a minority. Democrat presidents always pressure Israel to give away land. Things are completely different with republican presidents because the religious right is a major constituent of the GOP and they influence foreign policy, at least for the Israel/Palestinian issue.

Left and right don't mean the same thing in the US as it does in Europe. The is absolutely nothing like the BNP in the US, but if I had to place them somewhere on the political spectrum I guess I would consider the BNP to be far a left party because of their protectionist economic policies. Ditto for the Nazis, who were socialists.

Right and left are defined differently in the US? I didn't realise that. :/

And you're right, that is a strange voting trend for Jews. However, I'd like to point out that not all of us are completely opposed to the idea of giving away some land.

Your idea of considering the BNP to be far-left is confusing me, but perhaps because of the barrier you mentioned between definitions of left and right. However, I would have thought since racists are more likely to be right-wing in America (from what I know from Americans I know and way too much USA news over the elections - do correct me if I'm wrong, though), anti-Semites would also be more likely to be right-wing?

One thing that does need to be pointed out, however, is that National Socialism is not the same as normal Socialism. Socialism is an internationalist philosophy.

You're trying to put a square peg in a round hole by applying what you know about politics at home to how things work in the US. Brits always want to fit American politics into a mold that they can understand and relate to, but it just doesn't work. The closest thing you have to the Democrat party are the Tories, but they are still left of the democrats. The policies of the Democratic party more closely resemble Tory policies than the fiscal liberalism and social conservatism of the republican party. Tories and American democrats are right-leaning economically and left leaning on social policy. And there is no equivalent to the republican party in all of Western Europe. There are, however, some parties in eastern europe that are a little bit like the republican party.

Regarding racism, think about how diverse the US is, and how each party in a 2 party system needs to get over 50% of the vote to win an election. Neither party can afford to be accused of racism and both parties are constantly thinking of ways to entice people of minority groups to vote for them.

Keep your eye on a guy named Marco Rubio. Here in Florida, he is a rising star. He is one of the most exciting and inspiring politicians I have heard in quite some time. I would love to see him lead the republican party toward limited government and real personal freedom. And he is a latino, which can't hurt either.

Maybe that's how it works in your country. In the USA, left is anti-Israel, and the the right is vehemently pro-Israel. That's what makes the way US jews vote so peculiar. The strongest supporters of Israel in the US are the evangelical Christians. Orthadox jews tend to vote republican, but they are a minority within a minority. Democrat presidents always pressure Israel to give away land. Things are completely different with republican presidents because the religious right is a major constituent of the GOP and they influence foreign policy, at least for the Israel/Palestinian issue.

Left and right don't mean the same thing in the US as it does in Europe. There is absolutely nothing like the BNP in the US, but if I had to place them somewhere on the political spectrum I guess I would consider the BNP to be far a left party because of their protectionist economic policies. Ditto for the Nazis, who were socialists.

Wow, this is really interesting. So British politics are naturally more left-leaning than American politics?

I see your point about racism, but I have experienced more racism coming from those that claim to be "right wing" Americans. Then again, until recent years politics hasn't been an interest of mine, and with Obama on the opposing team naturally racists would flock to the Republican party to vote for the white candidate.

Is Marco Rubio actually a possibility for the next election? If so, a Latino vs. an African American (assuming Obama runs again) would be a pretty spectacular point in history.

He's not going to be ready for the big leagues for quite some time, and the establishment is betting on the wrong horse. They are supporting Charlie Crist, a goofy looking old white John McCain clone who just waffles and stands for nothing. We'll see what happens.

In my opinion, the Republicans can’t afford to put the “same ole white guy” out there. I think for now Bobby Jindal is probably the best shot the GOP has to take on Obama in 2012.

He's not going to be ready for the big leagues for quite some time, and the establishment is betting on the wrong horse. They are supporting Charlie Crist, a goofy looking old white John McCain clone who just waffles and stands for nothing. We'll see what happens.

In my opinion, the Republicans can’t afford to put the “same ole white guy” out there. I think for now Bobby Jindal is probably the best shot the GOP has to take on Obama in 2012.

I like Jindal but I think he should be saved for when Obama is not running i.e 2 elections later, plus as you say he needs some time. For the next one, we need someone like John McCain. I've heard alot of his speeches, he is a good man, and he speaks alot of sense. He fought in nam too and that military background is a great dimension to someone who is President.

McCain coulda won, just Obama was more charming with false promises. McCain has more substance IMO.

Mitt Romney or Ron Paul for 2012. Would love to see Cheney in the mix but not a chance.

Well I guess these are just some of your run-of-the-mill white people.










There's no way anyone could tell they were actually black!

Newsflash: there's more to race than skin pigmentation.

McCain the man is impressive, but McCain the politician is a lot less inspiring. There is absolutely no chance at all that he'll be the nominee after blowing it in '08. In 2012, he'll be 76 years old, far too old to be taken seriously as a candidate anyway.

True words. He will not be able to "sway" many of those sitting on the fence and only diehard republicans voted for him. What do you think of Ron Paul or Romney? Or do you think they are good but not enough "appeal" for other people?