• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

That's a good question. I'd like to hear Jasper's theory.

Similarly, you can take a shot at my question - why have 79 of 83 been white males? When you answer that question, you'll have the answer to TD's red herring.
 
79 of 83 picks in U.S. history have been white males. Why is that?

The short answer is obviously the position is inherently political and the POTUS believes that Holder then Lynch were the best picks for that position based on a number of different practical, operational and, yes, political goals, and that both would do an outstanding job. There really cannot be any other reason. You just cannot accept that a black person can earn any job based on the merits. That's your problem, not mine or Lynch's or the Presidents.

Goodness, it's like you're shocked that in this world and especially in the political arena, who you are and who you know matters. You're not an idiot so this comes as no surprise to you. You just object when a white boy doesn't get the job based on his connections.

of course its political Its racial pandering. and the white boys didn't get into big name law schools because they are white

Curious-have you been to law school?
 
Similarly, you can take a shot at my question - why have 79 of 83 been white males? When you answer that question, you'll have the answer to TD's red herring.

because during most of the time period, that was the group that had the most qualified candidates
 
Similarly, you can take a shot at my question - why have 79 of 83 been white males? When you answer that question, you'll have the answer to TD's red herring.

So you aren't going to answer the question.
 
of course its political Its racial pandering.

And the 79 of 83 weren't "racial pandering" and the country in 1965 would have accepted a black AG?

It's incredible you're a supposed highly trained lawyer and making such idiot arguments. Yes, it's a political appointment to a political job. Race is part of our politics. This is shocking to you somehow or you just don't favor blacks in positions of power?

and the white boys didn't get into big name law schools because they are white

Really? I have a feeling when I look at the class of 1984 that whites will be very well represented.

BTW, you avoid legacy preferences like the plague. I understand why but it's kind of funny you don't have issues with AA for rich white boys and girls.

Curious-have you been to law school?

No, but I know enough that baseless, unsubstantiated claims don't fly. I thought lawyers got that as well.
 
because during most of the time period, that was the group that had the most qualified candidates

Yeah, OK, no AA for white men going on, they just happened to make up the most qualified candidates because of random chance and not a system that guaranteed that ONLY white men had the opportunity to acquire real power in America.

You're just upset that the monopoly for white men in power is only 99% intact.
 
Wrong-the duty is on you to prove your case. You fail Rule 11 and Crim Rule 29

Nah....I'll leave it up to the jury to decide. They can decide whether it is just a "coincidence' that all of you took to this site mimicking Limbaugh's words. I knew something was up when I saw a half dozen posters saying the same thing. That's a sure sign that it was a talking point somewhere.
 
And the 79 of 83 weren't "racial pandering" and the country in 1965 would have accepted a black AG?

It's incredible you're a supposed highly trained lawyer and making such idiot arguments. Yes, it's a political appointment to a political job. Race is part of our politics. This is shocking to you somehow or you just don't favor blacks in positions of power?



Really? I have a feeling when I look at the class of 1984 that whites will be very well represented.

BTW, you avoid legacy preferences like the plague. I understand why but it's kind of funny you don't have issues with AA for rich white boys and girls.



No, but I know enough that baseless, unsubstantiated claims don't fly. I thought lawyers got that as well.

Thank you for stating what I already knew. You really have proven you just don't get the point. Obama panders to racial spoils. That is the point The late great political writer David Broder (hardly a conservative) noted that once the soviet union fell apart, the energy of the American hating faction of the left turned from worshipping Russian Collectivism to trying to balkanize American into warring groups each trying to assert claim for group rights.
 
Yeah, OK, no AA for white men going on, they just happened to make up the most qualified candidates because of random chance and not a system that guaranteed that ONLY white men had the opportunity to acquire real power in America.

You're just upset that the monopoly for white men in power is only 99% intact.

wrong, if there was a pure meritocracy on law school admissions and the AG job, there's be more Asians and far less blacks
 
Nah....I'll leave it up to the jury to decide. They can decide whether it is just a "coincidence' that all of you took to this site mimicking Limbaugh's words. I knew something was up when I saw a half dozen posters saying the same thing. That's a sure sign that it was a talking point somewhere.

I guess you are to embarrassed to even address the fact I was saying the same thing about this Obama Minion months ago. Long before you started pretending Limbaugh instigated this critique
 
Thank you for stating what I already knew. You really have proven you just don't get the point. Obama panders to racial spoils. That is the point The late great political writer David Broder (hardly a conservative) noted that once the soviet union fell apart, the energy of the American hating faction of the left turned from worshipping Russian Collectivism to trying to balkanize American into warring groups each trying to assert claim for group rights.

Got it. What reason other than pandering to 'racial spoils' could a black POTUS have for appointing a black woman.

I don't think you even hear your own arguments. If you want to make that claim, at the least you need to point to something in Lynch's background and position that indicates she's had a lifelong 'racial' agenda. If you want to go down that road, do it. I don't think you're a racist, but you're making a racist assumption - that she can ONLY be in that job to pander to racial spoils and not because Obama believes she will do a fine job. It would be offensive, but it's more humorous.
 
wrong, if there was a pure meritocracy on law school admissions and the AG job, there's be more Asians and far less blacks

And fewer rich white boys and girls admitted under legacy programs. That's the part you keep ignoring.
 
US politics plays in different way. Lynch's new job means the stepping down of Eric Holder. Watch the resignation of DEA Chief four days ago. They take the responsibility for the decision to frame a case. That's the trick they used to play. That's why Eric Holder cling to his post although he resigned long time ago. He's waiting for the time - to frame a drug case.

895. New plot is similar to the 2001 one (4/24/2015)

In early May 2001, the resignation of the Heads of FBI and DEA also indicates something big would take place.

DIRECTOR OF F.B.I. SAYS HE'LL RESIGN AFTER EIGHT YEARS

By DAVID JOHNSTON Published: May 2, 2001

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/02/us/director-of-fbi-says-he-ll-resign-after-eight-years.htm l

Impeachment Figure in Line For Drug Enforcement Post

By JAMES RISEN Published: May 9, 2001

WASHINGTON, May 8— President Bush is expected to name Representative Asa Hutchinson, an Arkansas Republican with a long interest in drug issues, as the new head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, officials said.

Impeachment Figure in Line For Drug Enforcement Post - NYTimes.com

Those heads used to step down with crime their department committed. At that time, it was for a framing drug case and attempt murder planned to happen several days later (originally for May 11, 2001 then extended to June 11 but went soured)

Now they repeat that old tactic again.

DEA Chief Michele Leonhart To Resign Amid 'Sex Party' Scandal, Policy Disagreements

Posted: 04/21/2015

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/21/dea-chief-michele-leonhart-resign_n_7109618.html
-----------------
Senate Confirms Loretta Lynch as Attorney General After Long Delay

By JENNIFER STEINHAUER APRIL 23, 2015
WASHINGTON — After one of the nation’s most protracted cabinet-level confirmation delays, the Senate Thursday approved Loretta E. Lynch to be attorney general


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/politics/loretta-lynch-attorney-general-vote.html?_r=0

Another two resignations of D.o.J. which means the Feds plot a new drug case ( DEA involved) and will commit a murder crime so they step down in advance to take the responsibility. Everything is similar to the EP-3 spy case of 2001 while secret deal with China has been made. (see "893. New secret deal (4/13/2015)") It could happen as early as tomorrow-Apr.25/2015 - my wife’s return date from her Chinese trip which was arranged by the Feds.

See all articles at: How the Feds persecute people - Page 5
 
The "argument" has been addressed repeatedly. It consists entirely of "She is black hence by definition unqualified for any position she's had for 40 years, therefore an AA baby."
And who, exactly made that argument?
 
Got it. What reason other than pandering to 'racial spoils' could a black POTUS have for appointing a black woman.

I don't think you even hear your own arguments. If you want to make that claim, at the least you need to point to something in Lynch's background and position that indicates she's had a lifelong 'racial' agenda. If you want to go down that road, do it. I don't think you're a racist, but you're making a racist assumption - that she can ONLY be in that job to pander to racial spoils and not because Obama believes she will do a fine job. It would be offensive, but it's more humorous.

I never said she has a lifelong racial agenda- you need to read better. Its Obama who panders to racial agendas
 
And fewer rich white boys and girls admitted under legacy programs. That's the part you keep ignoring.

Legacies at yale had higher GPAs then the average student. Legacies at yale had 20X more Phi Beta Kappas and Honors graduates then Affirmative action admissions. Why lots of kids of Yale Graduates are really smart.
 
And who, exactly made that argument?

Read the thread. TD said every achievement of hers over 40 years was "SOLELY" because of race. And he knows nothing about her except she's black.
 
I never said she has a lifelong racial agenda- you need to read better. Its Obama who panders to racial agendas

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?
 
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.
 
Legacies at yale had higher GPAs then the average student. Legacies at yale had 20X more Phi Beta Kappas and Honors graduates then Affirmative action admissions. Why lots of kids of Yale Graduates are really smart.

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom