• 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

roughdraft274 said:
Nothing is being missed. Your side has yet to show any evidence at all that affirmative action had anything to do with her getting into any of her schools or getting any of her jobs. Unless you have evidence your side is just bitching cause a well qualified black person got a job.
Click to expand...


that's really dishonest. of course Obama is not going to say he picked her because she is a black female. Of course Harvard is not going to admit that if she was a white male or even a white female with a 3.3-3.5 average at harvard, that candidate would not have been admitted. But its pretty obvious to anyone who was applying to big name law schools the SAME exact year she did that blacks were getting huge breaks

I posted several years ago proof that in 1981 blacks applying to harvard had .5 added to their GPA and 130 points on the LSAT which when LL and I took the LSAT, it was an 800 scale

So a WHITE MALE with a 3.75 from harvard college and a 750 LSAT score (someone who had about a 50-50 chance of admission at Harvard at BEST) was going to be passed over in favor of a black who had a 3.3 (+.5=3.8) and a 650 LSAT(+ 130=780) score.

If you (I know you didn't) ever looked at the admissions charts at Harvard you would have seen a graph

the up bar started at around 2.0 and each box increased by .20 or .25 culminating with 4.0 (GPA)

the horizontal bar started at around 600 and culminated (25 points per box) with a 800

those at the very top 3.8-4.0 and 775 or higher still had rejection rates of over 30%
the next box each way (someone with a top LSAT but say a 3.7 GPA) or a 4 point with a 750-775 LSAT had less than a third of a chance of being admitted. (especially if that GPA was not from Amherst, MIT, Yale or similar)

those two boxes back or down had almost no chance

but then down in the 3.3-3.5 area and around 640-660 we saw a fair amount (over 50 IIRC for the Class of 1984) who got into the school. and yes, those were the affirmative action admissions.

in a speech to interested Yale Undergrads at Yale law school, the lady dean of admissions for Harvard admitted that harvard had an "aggressive affirmative action program" and when questioned about that group of acceptances, refused to say all were black but did admit that this was proof of that "aggressive policy"

Yale law did the same thing, There is a report from a black law professor who applied to yale and harvard. one law school immediately accepted him, the other turned him down. When he called and inquired as to his rejection, he was told that the school didn't know he was black. He chose to attend the school that did and had let him in even though his initial rejection was overturned.

and yes, when LL applied to Harvard, hundreds upon hundreds of better qualified whites were turned down
 
JasperL said:
But if her rich daddy got her into Harvard and her connections through rich daddy and that degree got her her prior and current jobs, it's all good. I think we understand how it works in America.

And here's the thing - lots of blacks (and rich boys and athletes and others) have received preferences into the elite schools. But very few of them have had careers as successful as Lynch's. So at some point reasonable people without a burr up their rear end recognize that along with the initial preferences that got her a start, she has a very successful and distinguished 30 year career, and that reflects on her work ethic and ability to do a good job in a number of different settings, in the public and private sectors.
Click to expand...

you don't know much about being a US attorney do you?
 
TurtleDude said:
that's really dishonest. of course Obama is not going to say he picked her because she is a black female. Of course Harvard is not going to admit that if she was a white male or even a white female with a 3.3-3.5 average at harvard, that candidate would not have been admitted. But its pretty obvious to anyone who was applying to big name law schools the SAME exact year she did that blacks were getting huge breaks
Click to expand...

Once again, if the topic was AA and her admission into Harvard or HLS, all that's relevant. But what we're discussing is this and other similar assertions by you:

"another affirmative action poster child who has spend almost 40 years getting positions solely due to her race"

She graduated LS in 1984. It's 2015. She's had a 30 year career since then. At this point her academic records and test scores simply aren't relevant.
 
TurtleDude said:
you don't know much about being a US attorney do you?
Click to expand...

Tell us what it is that's different for Lynch than for, say, Chris Christie or any of the hundreds of USAs appointed in the last 20 years or so?

Christie is a white male so I assume he earned that position in your view, so what is it that makes Lynch's appointment, twice, tainted, solely because she is black? I can't wait for this explanation.....
 
TurtleDude said:
that's really dishonest. of course Obama is not going to say he picked her because she is a black female. Of course Harvard is not going to admit that if she was a white male or even a white female with a 3.3-3.5 average at harvard, that candidate would not have been admitted. But its pretty obvious to anyone who was applying to big name law schools the SAME exact year she did that blacks were getting huge breaks

I posted several years ago proof that in 1981 blacks applying to harvard had .5 added to their GPA and 130 points on the LSAT which when LL and I took the LSAT, it was an 800 scale

So a WHITE MALE with a 3.75 from harvard college and a 750 LSAT score (someone who had about a 50-50 chance of admission at Harvard at BEST) was going to be passed over in favor of a black who had a 3.3 (+.5=3.8) and a 650 LSAT(+ 130=780) score.

If you (I know you didn't) ever looked at the admissions charts at Harvard you would have seen a graph

the up bar started at around 2.0 and each box increased by .20 or .25 culminating with 4.0 (GPA)

the horizontal bar started at around 600 and culminated (25 points per box) with a 800

those at the very top 3.8-4.0 and 775 or higher still had rejection rates of over 30%
the next box each way (someone with a top LSAT but say a 3.7 GPA) or a 4 point with a 750-775 LSAT had less than a third of a chance of being admitted. (especially if that GPA was not from Amherst, MIT, Yale or similar)

those two boxes back or down had almost no chance

but then down in the 3.3-3.5 area and around 640-660 we saw a fair amount (over 50 IIRC for the Class of 1984) who got into the school. and yes, those were the affirmative action admissions.

in a speech to interested Yale Undergrads at Yale law school, the lady dean of admissions for Harvard admitted that harvard had an "aggressive affirmative action program" and when questioned about that group of acceptances, refused to say all were black but did admit that this was proof of that "aggressive policy"

Yale law did the same thing, There is a report from a black law professor who applied to yale and harvard. one law school immediately accepted him, the other turned him down. When he called and inquired as to his rejection, he was told that the school didn't know he was black. He chose to attend the school that did and had let him in even though his initial rejection was overturned.

and yes, when LL applied to Harvard, hundreds upon hundreds of better qualified whites were turned down
Click to expand...

DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT LORETTA LYNCH IS UNQUALIFIED FOR THE JOB?

So far your complain is that she didn't graduate magna cum laude and that she wasn't a top prosecutor (even though she was the top prosecutor in Brooklyn).

Do you have anything other than you tirade against those over-privileged black people?
 
roughdraft274 said:
DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT LORETTA LYNCH IS UNQUALIFIED FOR THE JOB?

So far your complain is that she didn't graduate magna cum laude and that she wasn't a top prosecutor (even though she was the top prosecutor in Brooklyn).

Do you have anything other than you tirade against those over-privileged black people?
Click to expand...

the real issue is

IS LORETTA LYNCH THE BEST AVAILABLE PERSON FOR THE JOB

no

Is she even close

no

Is she qualified compared to say Holder-Yes

is she qualified compared to someone Like say peter Keisler or Paul Clement? absolutely not
 
TurtleDude said:
the real issue is

IS LORETTA LYNCH THE BEST AVAILABLE PERSON FOR THE JOB

no

Is she even close

no

Is she qualified compared to say Holder-Yes

is she qualified compared to someone Like say peter Keisler or Paul Clement? absolutely not
Click to expand...

There ya go. Change the question.

- She was only picked cause she's black.
- Do you have any proof of this?
- Well she's very unqualified!
- Can you tell me hows she's unqualified? Where has she performed poorly during her career?
- Well she's not the most qualified!

Disgusting. Disgusting and vile. Just save us the time and be honest about your issues with her TD. Be honest and just come out with it.
 
TurtleDude said:
the real issue is

IS LORETTA LYNCH THE BEST AVAILABLE PERSON FOR THE JOB

no

Is she even close

no

Is she qualified compared to say Holder-Yes

is she qualified compared to someone Like say peter Keisler or Paul Clement? absolutely not
Click to expand...

just another laughable pick by Obama to corrupt the justice department more than holder corrupted it.
 
TextDriversKill said:
Legacy programs are not govt-mandated. AA is. THINK
Click to expand...

I would imagine that if one is fixated upon the big bad evil demonic GOVERNMENT as the source of all that is bad in the nation - such a distinction is paramount. I really do not give two craps who is responsible for the unfair preferences. I am against them regardless if it comes from government of the private sector.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's really dishonest. of course Obama is not going to say he picked her because she is a black female.
Click to expand...

So you will instead divine the real truth from some arcane skill like mind reading to arrive at this conclusion?
 
haymarket said:
So you will instead divine the real truth from some arcane skill like mind reading to arrive at this conclusion?
Click to expand...

Lets see if you can answer some preliminary questions


If someone graduates with at most a 3.5 average from harvard and hundreds and hundreds of whites with 3.7 or better are turned down by HLS

Is it reasonable to believe the successful candidate in question got affirmative action

IF Harvard law at the time added .5 points to the GPA of black candidates and 130 points to the LSAT score is it fair to believe that accepted black candidates had lower scores than many many whites who didn't get in?
 
TurtleDude said:
Lets see if you can answer some preliminary questions

If someone graduates with at most a 3.5 average from harvard and hundreds and hundreds of whites with 3.7 or better are turned down by HLS

Is it reasonable to believe the successful candidate in question got affirmative action

IF Harvard law at the time added .5 points to the GPA of black candidates and 130 points to the LSAT score is it fair to believe that accepted black candidates had lower scores than many many whites who didn't get in?
Click to expand...

Are we talking about her admission to law school in 1981, or her appointment to AG in 2015?

[goes and checks title of thread....... yep, "Senate confirms lynch as attorney general."]

Right, it's her appointment to AG after a 30 year career!! What the hell does her GPA and LSAT scores in 1981 have to do with anything at this point?

Goodness, your obsession over her Harvard days is bizarre. When was the last time you gave a damn about the academic record and test scores of a white guy with a 30 year career? If it's not "never," you've got a very bizarre way of evaluating qualifications.
 
JasperL said:
Are we talking about her admission to law school in 1981, or her appointment to AG in 2015?

[goes and checks title of thread....... yep, "Senate confirms lynch as attorney general."]

Right, it's her appointment to AG after a 30 year career!! What the hell does her GPA and LSAT scores in 1981 have to do with anything at this point?

Goodness, your obsession over her Harvard days is bizarre. When was the last time you gave a damn about the academic record and test scores of a white guy with a 30 year career? If it's not "never," you've got a very bizarre way of evaluating qualifications.
Click to expand...

I guess you don't even bother reading posts

1) lynch got into Harvard Law due to her race

2) her Harvard law diploma was a major factor in her getting several jobs

if she had gone to a law school based on her qualifications, her ability to end up as AG would have been lessened. DUH
 
haymarket said:
I would imagine that if one is fixated upon the big bad evil demonic GOVERNMENT as the source of all that is bad in the nation - such a distinction is paramount. I really do not give two craps who is responsible for the unfair preferences. I am against them regardless if it comes from government of the private sector.
Click to expand...

If forced to state an opinion on affirmative action/admissions preferences - frankly I'm not upset either way - I'd oppose them based on race, but support them based on economic condition. There are parents in NYC fighting to get their kids into $20,000 a year pre-school because they think it will help them get into an elite college. Those kids' entire lives are devoted to that goal, with access to the best schools, tutors, test prep services, etc. and they have an enormous advantage over some girl in Idaho attending the public school. The problem I have with race based preferences is some black kid in Harlem's biggest obstacle to getting into Harvard isn't race in 2015 but poverty and crap schools, same as his white counterparts in the same school. I can't justify giving a black kid a preference not available to his white or hispanic or asian counterparts.
 
JasperL said:
Goodness, your obsession over her Harvard days is bizarre. When was the last time you gave a damn about the academic record and test scores of a white guy with a 30 year career? If it's not "never," you've got a very bizarre way of evaluating qualifications.
Click to expand...

If white people got into college thru govt-mandated quotas (affirmative action) we would care.
 
haymarket said:
You have made it abundantly clear in discussion that you are completely in favor of preferences for rich kids but against them for minorities. Preferences are preferences and all the fancy parsing of pretend distinctions is irrelevant to that concept. If anyone has intellectual integrity - they should oppose them all if they oppose any.

I believe and support a system of college admissions by pure merit when the best are judged by their record and nothing else. Do you?
Click to expand...

I don't. You're missing an important part of the picture - the ability to pay. You know that quality that actually gives the university the ability to take those poor students in the first place, paying students.
 
TurtleDude said:
I guess you don't even bother reading posts

1) lynch got into Harvard Law due to her race

2) her Harvard law diploma was a major factor in her getting several jobs

if she had gone to a law school based on her qualifications, her ability to end up as AG would have been lessened. DUH
Click to expand...

I read them and quote you and respond directly. And you're walking back your earlier comments so I guess that's a good thing. Now it's "lessened," but what you maintained for a couple of days was it was "SOLELY" because of her race. So there's that....

Can't really argue with "lessened." If you'd not been born a legacy, your ability to end up wherever you are would be lessened for all kinds of reasons versus some kid born in Waco to a single mother waitress living in a double wide. We don't live in a true meritocracy and people get 'unfair' breaks every minute of every day. That's certainly true in politics. Oh well....
 
TurtleDude said:
I see none of the Obama fan boys on this thread want to deal with this question

DOES ANYONE BELIEVE that these two successive black appointees to the AG office were the best and the brightest attorneys Obama could find in the Department of Justice?
Click to expand...

probably not. do you believe that the best and brightest attorney is always the one who should be moved into the leadership position? the most skilled worker doesn't always make the best fit for the management job. for instance, a person can be brilliant at computer programming but not know how to manage people or make big decisions.
 
PeteEU said:
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.
Click to expand...

Regardless of how most politicians feel, I am uneasy when the Attorney General who seems so comfortable with the practice.
 
TextDriversKill said:
If white people got into college thru govt-mandated quotas (affirmative action) we would care.
Click to expand...

I don't think Harvard's affirmative action programs were government mandated quotas. Not sure it matters with respect to Lynch. She DID get into Harvard and HLS, and she graduated from both. How she did get in really isn't at all relevant, 35 years later, as to her current qualifications for the AG position.
 
TurtleDude said:
Lets see if you can answer some preliminary questions


If someone graduates with at most a 3.5 average from harvard and hundreds and hundreds of whites with 3.7 or better are turned down by HLS

Is it reasonable to believe the successful candidate in question got affirmative action

IF Harvard law at the time added .5 points to the GPA of black candidates and 130 points to the LSAT score is it fair to believe that accepted black candidates had lower scores than many many whites who didn't get in?
Click to expand...

YOur questions are disconnected from the post of mine you pretend to be replying to. I was poking fun at your contention that President Obama selected the Attorney General because she is a black female. What does this have to do with you pretending that you know the reason she was selected even though you clearly state he had not said this?

But I will answer your questions honestly and directly even though the same is rarely extended to myself: yes, it is reasonable to believe that candidates were admitted to Harvard Law using affirmative action - IF the only criteria is LSAT scores, GPA and ones race.

And yes, it appears that whites with higher scores were denied admission in favor of others.

Are those the only things considered for admission? Or are there other factors?

And as long as you are excusing things like legacy admissions - all you are really quibbling about is which preferences are acceptable to you. When are you going to have some intellectual integrity and argue that ALL persons should be judged by the same standard and that NOBODY should get preferences?
 
clownboy said:
I don't. You're missing an important part of the picture - the ability to pay. You know that quality that actually gives the university the ability to take those poor students in the first place, paying students.
Click to expand...

And just so we are all on the same page with the same information at hand, just how many POOR LEGACY admissions does Harvard make each year?
 
TurtleDude said:
the real issue is

IS LORETTA LYNCH THE BEST AVAILABLE PERSON FOR THE JOB
Click to expand...

Let us go for a minute with this question: what is the criteria for answering that question? By what standards would "the best available person" be determined and whose judgment is important in making that determination"
 
JasperL said:
If forced to state an opinion on affirmative action/admissions preferences - frankly I'm not upset either way - I'd oppose them based on race, but support them based on economic condition. There are parents in NYC fighting to get their kids into $20,000 a year pre-school because they think it will help them get into an elite college. Those kids' entire lives are devoted to that goal, with access to the best schools, tutors, test prep services, etc. and they have an enormous advantage over some girl in Idaho attending the public school. The problem I have with race based preferences is some black kid in Harlem's biggest obstacle to getting into Harvard isn't race in 2015 but poverty and crap schools, same as his white counterparts in the same school. I can't justify giving a black kid a preference not available to his white or hispanic or asian counterparts.
Click to expand...

Is this not a problem that can be dealt with through more scholarships targeted at the economically disadvantaged?
 
haymarket said:
Is this not a problem that can be dealt with through more scholarships targeted at the economically disadvantaged?
Click to expand...

Not entirely. As TD alludes to throughout this discussion, admission to Harvard et al. is at least a partial ticket to a number of high profile jobs. People who attend develop a lifetime of important contacts that open an extraordinary number of doors. If you attend an elite school, many of your classmates WILL BE pillars of industry, academia, law, government, etc. It's an invaluable experience, and no amount of scholarship money offsets the advantages that kids enjoy who have a lifetime of access to the best schools that are designed from the ground up to prepare students for admission to Harvard etc.

Obviously, Harvard can do what it wants, but I have no problem and would support them giving some preferences to kids from public schools, over kids from a $30,000/year elite private school. If the records are remotely comparable, it's safe to say the kid from public school likely 'achieved' more in HS given the disadvantage in their access to schools, test preps, etc. Put another way, if the admissions are purely a score and record driven merit based process, a wealthy kid is born approaching second and on his way to third, and a poor kid is at the plate with an 0-2 count. I don't think anyone has to pretend that they each have the same opportunities, and I have no problem with schools recognizing that by giving some preferences to those with the disadvantaged background.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom