• 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

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

Thank goodness - an actual critique of Lynch that isn't entirely based on her being a black woman and her college records from 35 years ago.

And it's one I entirely agree with. Our own GOP legislature punted on the issue this year thanks to opposition from police and DAs, who love it of course because they get to keep the money they seize, with or without evidence or the need to prove a crime. It's always amazed me that the practice hasn't been struck down nationwide by the courts.
 
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?

meh poor is relative. Just take their smartphone, which even the homeless "trick" in "nightcrawler" had, and that'll deter every minimum wage bum from hiding their $15 savings
 
Fantastic news - for latin america. Obama and lynch have no intention of enforcing our immigration laws. They have invited all of latin america to dump their welfare bums on america.

Kinda like what the earlier generations did with those 'damned Irish', Poles, Slavs, and other 'lesser folk' that huddled masses bit. far more of the 'nativists' forefathers came here steerage than first class.

But the haters don't like REAL history invoked.... :peace
 
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

True in the past but with $10 billion or whatever, yale could ignore all legacies and still give free rides to the poor kids

Basically value of degree generates wealthy alums, whether they started poor or not, who in turn donate those billions. In addition, Yale doesn't need to give preference to C students whose parents can cough up $50k/year any more, not when most qualified students will fall in the 1% anyway

I don't blame that kid's frustration, because those legacies have had *everything* handed to them, including undeserved admission AND a free education (parents pay for it), and a cruise trip during spring break etc etc.
 
wrong, if there was a pure meritocracy on law school admissions and the AG job, there's be more Asians and far less blacks

why do you care if the AG was picked on meritocracy, when the president himself is not picked that way? Nor anyone in elected office, including the vast majority of judges

What i find more disturbing is this notion of dem or repub judges. I mean wtf? I thought the law is supposed to be as clear as possible and not subject to political interpretation
 
Kinda like what the earlier generations did with those 'damned Irish', Poles, Slavs, and other 'lesser folk' that huddled masses bit. far more of the 'nativists' forefathers came here steerage than first class.

But the haters don't like REAL history invoked.... :peace

Those people were not illegally sneaking into our country, but arrived at Ellis Island legally!; where they were processed by the proper authorities. Sure, they may have arrived by steerage, but they did pay to get a seat on those boats, even though most were very poor. They went on to become citizens by working hard to learn English, worked hard on the jobs they got, bought houses and raised families. Their children and grandchildren helped to make this country great. There was no need to offer amnesty to them - they earned their right to be here, and they were here legally! Most of the people in our country today are the offspring of legal immigrants that came here during the early years of the 20th Century, me included. They adopted our customs, and assimilated into our society, instead of trying to change America to suit them, which seems to be a big problem with the illegals today. They want the benefits without any effort on their part to become legal citizens, and that's wrong. We owe them nothing - they owe this country, and it's time they realized that! :2mad:
 
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

Like I said, for some reason rich white boys defend AA for rich white boys. Weird how that works. Of course rich white boys justify AA for their own kids - they're rich, they're entitled to special treatment. Black kids not so much.

BTW, MIT manages to fund their endowment without legacy admissions. It's an excuse for legacy admissions, not the reason for them.
 
You seem obsessed with trying to pretend Obama's selection was based on merit when it wasn't.

No, I'm enjoying pointing out how stupid your argument is. You have no idea how her selection was made and you haven't demonstrated any knowledge of her competence or record over a 30 year career spanning a significant amount of time in both the public and private sectors. Whether she earned that post simply isn't based on her GPA in college and LS in the early 1980s. What is several orders of magnitude more important is her work over her subsequent career, and whether she has the political skill, public relations skills, interpersonal skills, and leadership skills developed over that career to succeed in an inherently political job. You know jack squat about that and apparently don't even care about her career - all you need to know is her academic record, which you judge based on made up criteria, conclude she's a failure, as a student and as a professional in the law.

All you see is black woman =====>>>> unqualified.

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.

"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."
 
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

BTW, nice story, but I'm still waiting on some evidence for the stats you're pulling out of your rear on this issue. Is it 2,000 white boys or 1,000 or 1,200 (including women) and 20x seems to be an unlikely round number.
 
Last edited:
I don't blame that kid's frustration, because those legacies have had *everything* handed to them, including undeserved admission AND a free education (parents pay for it), and a cruise trip during spring break etc etc.

Big difference between your parents giving you money and the govt taking money from working strangers and giving the money to you.
 
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?

Poor, middle class, wealthy - not the point. The point is cops seizing money/assets and not having to prove an actual crime was committed. And the incredibly corrosive incentives when the police department seizing the money gets to keep the money as part of their funding. It's an invitation for abuse.
 
What i find more disturbing is this notion of dem or repub judges. I mean wtf? I thought the law is supposed to be as clear as possible and not subject to political interpretation

Where did you get that preposterous idea?. Laws are always ambiguous.
 
why do you care if the AG was picked on meritocracy, when the president himself is not picked that way? Nor anyone in elected office, including the vast majority of judges

Yeah, he knows how the world works, and there has never been an AG in the history of the country picked based on a 'meritocracy.' But he can make up standards that don't apply to any of the 79/83 white males appointed, subject black women to it, then conclude they only got the job because they're black based on his own made up standards.
 
Yeah, he knows how the world works, and there has never been an AG in the history of the country picked based on a 'meritocracy.' But he can make up standards that don't apply to any of the 79/83 white males appointed, subject black women to it, then conclude they only got the job because they're black based on his own made up standards.

Her race may have been used *against* her at various points in life but the anti AA pro legacy (aka racist) crowd doesn't give two ****s about that. Even IF obama used race as a factor, i couldn't give a damn. It's going to take a lot more than one attorney general pick to turn around this broken legal system
 
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.

Perhaps so, although there has been a fair amount of state and federal legislation from the right to curb it.
 
I love when this subject comes up and the same folks stumble forward to tell us how unfair and downright unAmericans affirmative actions programs are aimed at African Americans and other minorities but then fall all over themselves to justify AA programs like legacy admissions for rich white kids simply because its all a matter of whose oxe is being gored.

Intellectual consistency resulting in integrity seems to have gone the way of the tri-cornered hat for some making these justifications.
 
This is insane. Not only is she anti-america, but she is also a double affirmative action baby being both black and female. Totally unqualified but none of that matters anymore. Without AA she'd be a waitress.

Racist and elitist trash. You couldn't qualify to hang her lifetime achievement certificates on her office wall.
 
Like I said, for some reason rich white boys defend AA for rich white boys. Weird how that works. Of course rich white boys justify AA for their own kids - they're rich, they're entitled to special treatment. Black kids not so much.

BTW, MIT manages to fund their endowment without legacy admissions. It's an excuse for legacy admissions, not the reason for them.

legacy admissions actually benefit the university and poor students who couldn't afford to attend without aid. racist admissions hurt everyone. I never-in four years-saw a Legacy-fail to make grades. My freshman suite had four students. One was from an old old distinguished family dating back to one of the first constitutional scholars in US History. #1 at one of the most prestigious prep schools in the country and 1600 scores on the SAT. He dropped out due to cocaine. The second boy went to a top private day school in NYC, was all city in basketball and was another rich white dude like me and the guy with the nose issue. He got B grades, was popular and very involved in varsity (Freshman year) and intramural sports. I had OK grades freshman year, made all conference in one sport, JV in another, and graduated with a A- average, a national title and two time all-american. The last guy was black, had a 1320 SAT (below average at Yale but he was the top scoring black guy in my class) and had gone to a progressive HS in Queens (John Dewey) which didn't give grades. His SAT scores were 140 points lower than the the basketball star (who had the lowest of us three white guys). This guy flunked out. He was asked to take a term off and he never came back. Now if he had gone to a good public university, he probably would have done pretty well and got a degree.

THe jock and I were both legacies.
 
I love when this subject comes up and the same folks stumble forward to tell us how unfair and downright unAmericans affirmative actions programs are aimed at African Americans and other minorities but then fall all over themselves to justify AA programs like legacy admissions for rich white kids simply because its all a matter of whose oxe is being gored.

Intellectual consistency resulting in integrity seems to have gone the way of the tri-cornered hat for some making these justifications.

As usual your posts don't understand the difference. AA is based on race which violates title VII. programs that give jocks, chess masters, ballerinas or rich kids who fund the education of other kids breaks do not.
 
As usual your posts don't understand the difference. AA is based on race which violates title VII. programs that give jocks, chess masters, ballerinas or rich kids who fund the education of other kids breaks do not.

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?
 
Back
Top Bottom