• 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

Montecresto said:
Perhaps so, although there has been a fair amount of state and federal legislation from the right to curb it.
Click to expand...

Oh where? The worst offenders are the red states... just saying..
 
TurtleDude said:
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.
Click to expand...

1) Again, legacy admissions are AA for rich white boys. That you benefited and did well doesn't change the fact that they are a form of AA. I get why you defend AA extended to you and your rich white boy buddies, but there is no principled basis for favoring AA for rich white boys but opposing AA for poor black kids, except you feel entitled to special treatment because of who daddy was or is.

2) 1320 puts the guy in roughly the top 8-10% of test takers. Assuming your story is not made up, I have a very hard time believing (i.e. do not believe at all) the person failed out for lack of ability. More likely is an obviously smart student failed out for the same reason most do at any level - lack of effort. And whatever factors were in play, this one person is irrelevant to the topic.

3) The topic is Lynch. She didn't fail out. She graduated from Harvard, HLS, and has had a distinguished 30 year career.

4) Whether Lynch earned her appointment to AG is completely unrelated to her college test scores, her GPA and class ranking. She graduated laws school 30 years ago. From that day forward, what matters is her record in her various jobs both in the public and private sector. When was the last time you cared about any politician's academic record who wasn't black or a woman? Never is a good guess.

5) You're entire argument is nothing more than Lynch was a beneficiary of AA in college. You ignore everything because you don't know anything about her career between 1984 and 2015 and conclude that her entire career is due "solely" to AA promotions. It's a transparently stupid and indefensible argument that has as a core assumption that a black woman cannot succeed based on her merits. It would be offensive if I cared about your opinion, and only not transparently racist because an elitist snobbery explains it just as well.
 
America never ever promised freedom to anyone. What this nation tells us is work hard and study hard and good things will follow. All peoples that believe this or any government has to provide and promise will some day be exterminated as we in America exterminate blacks and poor people. We just don't use that word but look around. I don't want to live near them and neither does anyone that has worked their ass off for a descent home and life.
 
TurtleDude said:
why would someone who went to Yale be upset about someone going to a less college:mrgreen:

You all just hate to admit that affirmative racism was what drove her selection (to several positions)
Click to expand...

You folks keep declaring that like it's some sort of proven fact.
 
Deuce said:
You folks keep declaring that like it's some sort of proven fact.
Click to expand...

In their 'minds' it is a proven fact. We know the right likes to create its own reality.
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Suskind, Ron (2004-10-17). Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush. The New York Times Magazine.
Click to expand...
 
Deuce said:
You folks keep declaring that like it's some sort of proven fact.
Click to expand...

she didn't make the sort of grades whites needed to get into Harvard law
 
JasperL said:
1) Again, legacy admissions are AA for rich white boys. That you benefited and did well doesn't change the fact that they are a form of AA. I get why you defend AA extended to you and your rich white boy buddies, but there is no principled basis for favoring AA for rich white boys but opposing AA for poor black kids, except you feel entitled to special treatment because of who daddy was or is.

2) 1320 puts the guy in roughly the top 8-10% of test takers. Assuming your story is not made up, I have a very hard time believing (i.e. do not believe at all) the person failed out for lack of ability. More likely is an obviously smart student failed out for the same reason most do at any level - lack of effort. And whatever factors were in play, this one person is irrelevant to the topic.

3) The topic is Lynch. She didn't fail out. She graduated from Harvard, HLS, and has had a distinguished 30 year career.

4) Whether Lynch earned her appointment to AG is completely unrelated to her college test scores, her GPA and class ranking. She graduated laws school 30 years ago. From that day forward, what matters is her record in her various jobs both in the public and private sector. When was the last time you cared about any politician's academic record who wasn't black or a woman? Never is a good guess.

5) You're entire argument is nothing more than Lynch was a beneficiary of AA in college. You ignore everything because you don't know anything about her career between 1984 and 2015 and conclude that her entire career is due "solely" to AA promotions. It's a transparently stupid and indefensible argument that has as a core assumption that a black woman cannot succeed based on her merits. It would be offensive if I cared about your opinion, and only not transparently racist because an elitist snobbery explains it just as well.
Click to expand...

Michelle Obama claims it was legacy admissions that got her into princeton not her color.
 
PeteEU said:
That is criminal asset forfeiture..

We are talking about CIVIL.. cases like this one

Iowa Civil Asset Forfeiture Case Gets National Attention | whotv.com

Or

Click to expand...


civil forfeiture is almost alway aimed at criminal activities

its a complicated issue and the standard of proof changed in the last ten years. And I tried a bunch of these cases.

This would be grounds for a civil forfeiture case

David is a drug dealer. He has no known source of income other than drug dealing. He buys an expensive car and puts it in his father's name. his father is the "owner of record". One day the feds seize the car claiming it is the proceeds of drug sales that paid for the car. David doesn't make a claim on the car because he has no legitimate income. Rather, Steve, David's father makes the claim. He is not charged with any criminal offense so the forfeiture case is CIVIL. (as opposed to say an indictment against David listing say 100K in case seized along with two kilos of cocaine in David'd apartment during a search warrant execution)

So Steve files a claim to the car saying he has the title. The US Attorney brings in the car salesman who testifies that it was David who test drove the car. It was David who specified what extras the car would come with but Yes Steve "bought the car"

this happens all the time

In another case. Bill was a drug dealer. His mother and father combined made about 120K a year. Bill and his brother went out and bought a safe one day and put it in his parents' house.. the regional drug task force constantly saw Bill going in and out of his parents house driving a pimped out truck. Bill's income tax form for the prior 3 years indicated less than 8K a year in income. Warrants were obtained and the Parents' house was searched and the pimped out truck seized. The truck title had mom owning the truck even though it was not the style of vehicle a 65 year old Black female would drive but a common style for 30 year old drug dealers (heavily tinted windows, spinner rims etc)

in the safe was 300K in cash that two different dogs hit on. NOTHING belonging to the parents. the money was bundled in the same manner, and denominations as money seized from the Drug dealer's home. same color rubber bans. Stacks of 1000 dollars with the same packaging. 4 hundreds, four fifties ten twenties and the rest in tens or fives.

when the raid took place, one kid still living with the parents said the safe was "bill's". The father was unaware of the safe and the money. When the mother came home the cops asked for the combination. She walked away and came back and opened it. Cell phone records indicated she called Bill right before opening the safe

so again this was a civil forfeiture because the "owner" of the safe was not indicted for drug dealing

while I have lots of issues with civil forfeiture, in many cases it is justified.
 
TurtleDude said:
while I have lots of issues with civil forfeiture, in many cases it is justified.
Click to expand...

And that some how justifies out right theft by police in all the cases where it is in no way justified?
 
PeteEU said:
And that some how justifies out right theft by police in all the cases where it is in no way justified?
Click to expand...

the Police have to convince a jury by a preponderance of the evidence that the money or property was drug proceeds
 
TurtleDude said:
Michelle Obama claims it was legacy admissions that got her into princeton not her color.
Click to expand...

Holy red herring batman!! Remember, the topic is Lynch and her qualifications for AG.

So, let's try again, since the lawyer seems to have a reading comprehension problem:

3) The topic is Lynch. She didn't fail out. She graduated from Harvard, HLS, and has had a distinguished 30 year career.

4) Whether Lynch earned her appointment to AG is completely unrelated to her college test scores, her GPA and class ranking. She graduated law school 30 years ago. From that day forward, what matters is her record in her various jobs both in the public and private sector. When was the last time you cared about any politician's academic record who wasn't black or a woman? Never is a good guess.

5) You're entire argument is nothing more than Lynch was a beneficiary of AA in college. You ignore everything because you don't know anything about her career between 1984 and 2015 and conclude that her entire career is due "solely" to AA promotions. It's a transparently stupid and indefensible argument that has as a core assumption that a black woman cannot succeed based on her merits. It would be offensive if I cared about your opinion, and only not transparently racist because an elitist snobbery explains it just as well.
Click to expand...
 
JasperL said:
Holy red herring batman!! Remember, the topic is Lynch and her qualifications for AG.

So, let's try again, since the lawyer seems to have a reading comprehension problem:
Click to expand...


someone without a reading comprehension problem would remember claims that legacies are for rich white men

L2's record was based on getting jobs due to her race. like being a US attorney
 
TurtleDude said:
she didn't make the sort of grades whites needed to get into Harvard law
Click to expand...

I hope you practice law better than you debate. This was your assertion:

You all just hate to admit that affirmative racism was what drove her selection (to several positions)
Click to expand...

How she got into law school is completely irrelevant to determining how she got a series of public and private sector jobs over a 30 year period after she graduated by law school.
 
TurtleDude said:
someone without a reading comprehension problem would remember claims that legacies are for rich white men
Click to expand...

Legacy admissions isn't the topic.

L2's record was based on getting jobs due to her race. like being a US attorney
Click to expand...

That's a baseless claim. Literally without any foundation. You have offered not even a whiff of evidence, not even an attempt at a persuasive case, for that assertion. Your evidence that she got those jobs solely because of her race is SHE is BLACK. That's it. The underlying assumption in your argument is black women cannot rise to power based on their own merits.

1. She got the job due to her race.
2. We know that because she's black.

That's your case so far.

If you want to make that racist case, do so explicitly instead of hiding behind laughable arguments. You're supposedly a smart lawyer, so you must know your so-called arguments are crap. Not sure who you think you're fooling.
 
JasperL said:
I hope you practice law better than you debate. This was your assertion:



How she got into law school is completely irrelevant to determining how she got a series of public and private sector jobs over a 30 year period after she graduated by law school.
Click to expand...

your love for her is touching. Or is it love for Obama?

and since you don't practice law, you really don't appear to have a real understanding about this matter
 
TurtleDude said:
civil forfeiture is almost alway aimed at criminal activities

its a complicated issue and the standard of proof changed in the last ten years. And I tried a bunch of these cases.

This would be grounds for a civil forfeiture case

David is a drug dealer. He has no known source of income other than drug dealing. He buys an expensive car and puts it in his father's name. his father is the "owner of record". One day the feds seize the car claiming it is the proceeds of drug sales that paid for the car. David doesn't make a claim on the car because he has no legitimate income. Rather, Steve, David's father makes the claim. He is not charged with any criminal offense so the forfeiture case is CIVIL. (as opposed to say an indictment against David listing say 100K in case seized along with two kilos of cocaine in David'd apartment during a search warrant execution)

So Steve files a claim to the car saying he has the title. The US Attorney brings in the car salesman who testifies that it was David who test drove the car. It was David who specified what extras the car would come with but Yes Steve "bought the car"

this happens all the time

In another case. Bill was a drug dealer. His mother and father combined made about 120K a year. Bill and his brother went out and bought a safe one day and put it in his parents' house.. the regional drug task force constantly saw Bill going in and out of his parents house driving a pimped out truck. Bill's income tax form for the prior 3 years indicated less than 8K a year in income. Warrants were obtained and the Parents' house was searched and the pimped out truck seized. The truck title had mom owning the truck even though it was not the style of vehicle a 65 year old Black female would drive but a common style for 30 year old drug dealers (heavily tinted windows, spinner rims etc)

in the safe was 300K in cash that two different dogs hit on. NOTHING belonging to the parents. the money was bundled in the same manner, and denominations as money seized from the Drug dealer's home. same color rubber bans. Stacks of 1000 dollars with the same packaging. 4 hundreds, four fifties ten twenties and the rest in tens or fives.

when the raid took place, one kid still living with the parents said the safe was "bill's". The father was unaware of the safe and the money. When the mother came home the cops asked for the combination. She walked away and came back and opened it. Cell phone records indicated she called Bill right before opening the safe

so again this was a civil forfeiture because the "owner" of the safe was not indicted for drug dealing

while I have lots of issues with civil forfeiture, in many cases it is justified.
Click to expand...

But I thought that people aren't categorically against civil asset forfeiture, but rather those cases which tend not to be anything near the seemingly shut and dry case you cite?
 
Republicans in the Michigan Legislature make private property protections a priority | FreedomWorks

In Montana,
The bipartisan bill, introduced by state Rep. Kelly McCarthy (D-Billings) and cosponsored by state Daniel Zolnikov (R-Billings), passed the Republican-controlled Montana House of Representatives in March with strong bipartisan support.
http://danielzolnikov.com/tag/asset-forfeiture/

Republican New Mexico governor signed reform legislation passed by a strong bi-partisan state congress.
http://www.abqjournal.com/567761/news/gov-signs-law-banning-asset-seizure.html
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
But I thought that people aren't categorically against civil asset forfeiture, but rather those cases which tend not to be anything near the seemingly shut and dry case you cite?
Click to expand...

that's what judges and juries are for. to make the decisions. and when I first started dealing with this area of the law, the burden of proof was weighted in favor of the government. all the government had to do was show probable cause of drug proceeds or facilitation (i.e. a car being used to transport narcotics) and the burden shifted to the claimant to either show innocent ownership or that the property was not proceeds.
 
of course the solution is to end the idiotic FEDERAL war on drugs and much of this will go away.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's what judges and juries are for. to make the decisions. and when I first started dealing with this area of the law, the burden of proof was weighted in favor of the government. all the government had to do was show probable cause of drug proceeds or facilitation (i.e. a car being used to transport narcotics) and the burden shifted to the claimant to either show innocent ownership or that the property was not proceeds.
Click to expand...

Yes, and those grand jury's may indict a ham sandwich.
 
TurtleDude said:
your love for her is touching. Or is it love for Obama?
Click to expand...

Another red herring. The lawyer is on a roll tonight!

and since you don't practice law, you really don't appear to have a real understanding about this matter
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything other than you got nothing? And my "understanding about this matter" is sufficient to recognize this as a BS argument:

1. She got every job over her entire "40 year" career "solely" due to her race.
2. We know that because she is black.

So far that's the entirety of your 'case' against Ms. Lynch. We have had several interesting but irrelevant diversions into affirmative action, your law school chums, made up stats, Michelle Obama, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom