Thread: Senate confirms lynch as attorney general. 10 "republicans" vote for her

Originally Posted by JasperL

Of course, because by your reasoning, if a white man appoints a white man, it's the way the world should work. That's what happened the first 77 times an AG was appointed in American history. If a black man appoints a black man or woman (2 of 83 times), he's pandering to racial agendas.

Not only that, but since the appointee is a black woman, the only possible explanation for her getting the job, this person you know NOTHING about, is AA. You haven't offered even a hint about her record from 1984 to 2015, a 30 year career after Harvard. Literally not.one.thing. Nothing. But you assert without the slightest whiff of evidence that her entire career is nothing but a series of AA achievements.

You do realize how stupid that argument is, don't you?

see that's the curse of affirmative action. when 1000 or more whites were turned down who had better numbers than even the highest scoring black in the HLS class of 1984, we can assume that any black in that class was less qualified than almost all the whites and less qualified than lots of whites who didn't get in.

Originally Posted by TurtleDude

see that's the curse of affirmative action. when 1000 or more whites were turned down who had better numbers than even the highest scoring black in the HLS class of 1984, we can assume that any black in that class was less qualified than almost all the whites and less qualified than lots of whites who didn't get in.

I thought it was 2,000? Or 1,200. Now you're back to 1,000. I guess the "or more" is your attempt at covering all the bases from 1,000 to 100,000? Either provide some evidence for your made up stats or give them a rest.

And for some reason you're obsessed with the woman's college record, but completely ignore a 30 year career, except to assert without the slightest evidence that anything she accomplished was "solely" due to race. When was the last time you obsessed about a white man's college record appointed to any political position? My guess is never. Without looking it up on wiki, you can't tell me the first thing about the education of Meese, Ashcroft, Thornburgh, etc. No one cares, or should care except as trivia, because it's irrelevant about 5 years after they left college and had a record in their careers.

Your problem is you don't have a rational argument. When a white man appoints a white man, 77 straight times, no problem. When a black man appoints a black man, it's AA. When a black man appoints a black woman, it's AA, and the black man must be pandering to a racial agenda. You can't really defend it because what you're alleging without saying it out loud is it never occurs to you that a black person can rise to a position of power on their merits.

I was hoping she would not be confirmed. Her views/record on civil asset forfeiture are terrifying.

Loretta Lynch Has No Problem With Civil Asset Forfeiture -- And That's A Problem - Forbes

Originally Posted by Helvidius

I was hoping she would not be confirmed. Her views/record on civil asset forfeiture are terrifying.

Loretta Lynch Has No Problem With Civil Asset Forfeiture -- And That's A Problem - Forbes

To be fair, most politicians have "no problem" with this. It means they can cut taxes on the wealthy because they save on the police.. and the police can steal from the poor and middle class instead.

Originally Posted by JasperL

More made up stats? Seems to be a specialty this thread. It's 20x this post, but might be 10x or 50x next time you cite this made up stat. Can't wait to find out!

And it really doesn't matter that many legacies are smart. They should be - the vast majority had access to the best schools from toddler through HS, tutors, test prep services, no need to work a job in HS or college, etc. And even with those advantages, legacy admissions is AA for rich white boys and girls, and it's the longest running AA program in the elite colleges. For some reason rich white boys defend AA for other rich white boys, but have a problem with AA for poor black kids. Weird how that works.

you don't seem to understand this issue. what benefit does a university get by letting in black students with much lower scores and who often struggle to pass? I remember an interesting conversation that featured the late great Robert Dahl-one of Yale's top Professors. Dahl, certainly no conservative, heard a student complain about legacy admissions and Dahl asked him if he was paying full tuition. And the student admitted he was getting aid. And Dahl smiled and said-rich legacies are the reason why you can go here and not get hit by a ton of debt and why I can work here and make at least some what as much as I would for the Rand Corporation

Originally Posted by JasperL

I thought it was 2,000? Or 1,200. Now you're back to 1,000. I guess the "or more" is your attempt at covering all the bases from 1,000 to 100,000? Either provide some evidence for your made up stats or give them a rest.

And for some reason you're obsessed with the woman's college record, but completely ignore a 30 year career, except to assert without the slightest evidence that anything she accomplished was "solely" due to race. When was the last time you obsessed about a white man's college record appointed to any political position? My guess is never. Without looking it up on wiki, you can't tell me the first thing about the education of Meese, Ashcroft, Thornburgh, etc. No one cares, or should care except as trivia, because it's irrelevant about 5 years after they left college and had a record in their careers.

Your problem is you don't have a rational argument. When a white man appoints a white man, 77 straight times, no problem. When a black man appoints a black man, it's AA. When a black man appoints a black woman, it's AA, and the black man must be pandering to a racial agenda. You can't really defend it because what you're alleging without saying it out loud is it never occurs to you that a black person can rise to a position of power on their merits.

You seem obsessed with trying to pretend Obama's selection was based on merit when it wasn't. given how few blacks are really top law school graduates, your argument is silly. You act as if there are an equal number of blacks who really earned their way into top law schools as there are whites.

Originally Posted by PeteEU

To be fair, most politicians have "no problem" with this. It means they can cut taxes on the wealthy because they save on the police.. and the police can steal from the poor and middle class instead.

yeah I guess some drug dealer who has 200K in cash lying around but only reported 10K in income is poor. Think about it, if people targeted for asset forfeiture were truly poor-what would the government get from seizing their almost non-existent assets?