• 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

Which explains your position favoring that type of preferences while opposing those not for your crowd.

I would hope that rational and intelligent people judge policies by a bit more than is it good for their own selfish concerns.

good athletes help a school more than people who have no standout skills.

legacies support the university and allow meritorious students to attend without being crushed by debt.

racism is evil Haymarket but you seem to support it because affirmative action benefits groups that tend to vote Democrat. That is really selfish as well as being racist because affirmative action is based on the racist attitude that blacks cannot actually get the credentials on their own that would allow them to compete with whites and asians
 
If a white president appointed successive white appointees would you be crying racism?

They were completely qualified candidates. The majority of his cabinet and appointed positions are white. But he's had two black in a row in one position? Well that just doesn't sit well with TD.That spot should be given to a white person. Because that's whats right.

If anyone is curious as to why sometimes republicans get labeled racist, have a good read through of this thread.

Amen brother... amen. But its racism all scrubbed clean and bright with libertarian philosophy on it trying to disguise it pretending its now something else. Put some fancy lipstick on a pig - it is still a pig.
 
Amen brother... amen. But its racism all scrubbed clean and bright with libertarian philosophy on it trying to disguise it pretending its now something else. Put some fancy lipstick on a pig - it is still a pig.

its not the libertarians who institutionally claim blacks cannot make it on their own and need to be beholden to Democrat Party masters to be given positions they couldn't own on their own
 
good athletes help a school more than people who have no standout skills.

legacies support the university and allow meritorious students to attend without being crushed by debt.

racism is evil Haymarket but you seem to support it because affirmative action benefits groups that tend to vote Democrat. That is really selfish as well as being racist because affirmative action is based on the racist attitude that blacks cannot actually get the credentials on their own that would allow them to compete with whites and asians

You are NOT accurately repeating my position. I have stated over and over again that I favor the absolute best being admitted to colleges with no preferences for anyone - and that includes legacies - athletes - musicians - minorities - or anyone else. I really do NOT care if the entire incoming class at some school is made up Asian females... or white males ..... or black transgender folks.... as long as they are the best according to the academic standard agreed upon.
 
its not the libertarians who institutionally claim blacks cannot make it on their own and need to be beholden to Democrat Party masters to be given positions they couldn't own on their own

Where did I say it was? :doh:roll:
 
You are NOT accurately repeating my position. I have stated over and over again that I favor the absolute best being admitted to colleges with no preferences for anyone - and that includes legacies - athletes - musicians - minorities - or anyone else. I really do NOT care if the entire incoming class at some school is made up Asian females... or white males ..... or black transgender folks.... as long as they are the best according to the academic standard agreed upon.

you support the democrat imposed racial spoils system. I do not. and I tire of the Democrat party engaging in activity that furthers racial divides
 
true one is based on race which violates Title VII

No, preferences given to e.g. a chess master/violinist are based on merit, just a different standard than GPA and test scores. Same with an athlete. Legacy admissions aren't preferred based on merit but who their daddy or momma is and how much money they have donated to the school.

And at the time the offer to Lynch was legal, and it's obviously legal for her to accept any offer from Harvard. Once she was admitted and graduated, also entirely legal and appropriate for her to note that on her job applications and use it to her advantage same way you use your Yale education to yours.

And why is Lynch's entire CAREER illegitimate because she was admitted to college more than 30 years ago based on admission preferences, but your rich buddies admitted under legacy preferences are legitimately allowed to use their degrees for career advancement.

I know the answer - preferences should only go to the privileged elite, not to the proles. That seems to be your bottom line.
 
No, preferences given to e.g. a chess master/violinist are based on merit, just a different standard than GPA and test scores. Same with an athlete. Legacy admissions aren't preferred based on merit but who their daddy or momma is and how much money they have donated to the school.

And at the time the offer to Lynch was legal, and it's obviously legal for her to accept any offer from Harvard. Once she was admitted and graduated, also entirely legal and appropriate for her to note that on her job applications and use it to her advantage same way you use your Yale education to yours.

And why is Lynch's entire CAREER illegitimate because she was admitted to college more than 30 years ago based on admission preferences, but your rich buddies admitted under legacy preferences are legitimately allowed to use their degrees for career advancement.

I know the answer - preferences should only go to the privileged elite, not to the proles. That seems to be your bottom line.

you are dancing around the the issue

Years ago, when I was a young trial lawyer, a case was being heard over the value of land that had been appropriated by eminent domain. The senior partner of my firm was the counsel for the landowner and he was cross examining the expert hired by the state as to the value of the land.

The expert spent two hours detailing all the times he had been hired as an expert by government units. All the times he had testified. That wasn't at issue. The Plaintiff's counsel (my boss) asked ONE question

"that's all very impressive Mr. X but isn't it a fact that you were hired for every one of those matters due to the fact that you were the governor's brother in law?"

we won the case
 
good athletes help a school more than people who have no standout skills.

Merit based - of course colleges should give preferences to people based on merit, and test scores and GPA are obviously not the only way to measure merit.

legacies support the university and allow meritorious students to attend without being crushed by debt.

But whether there is some net societal good from legacy admissions for kids of rich parents (it's not the issue on this thread, so we can accept it for the purpose here) doesn't really affect whether or not the career of someone whose daddy bought them a ticket into Harvard is legitimate, but someone who got a ticket to Harvard based on the color of their skin is illegitimate. The ticket is either merit based or not. Daddy buying it isn't merit based, same as a racial preference isn't merit based.

You're trying hard to distinguish them, but you'll continue to fail. You've dismissed Lynch's entire "40 year" career based because of how she got her ticket - not based on merit. If you want to assert that, then surely you will dismiss the careers of legacy admissions.

racism is evil Haymarket but you seem to support it because affirmative action benefits groups that tend to vote Democrat. That is really selfish as well as being racist because affirmative action is based on the racist attitude that blacks cannot actually get the credentials on their own that would allow them to compete with whites and asians

Legacy admissions are based on the attitude that kids of rich parents cannot get the credentials on their own that would allow them to compete. They need daddy's help.
 
she was, Lynch was not. read what I said

She was the top federal prosecutor in Brooklyn. Look it up.

You still haven't come up with a single reason. Just admit the real reason you don't like her TD.
 
you support the democrat imposed racial spoils system. I do not. and I tire of the Democrat party engaging in activity that furthers racial divides

Please go back and read again - this time with an open mind. I have stated over and over again that I favor the absolute best being admitted to colleges with no preferences for anyone - and that includes legacies - athletes - musicians - minorities - or anyone else. I really do NOT care if the entire incoming class at some school is made up Asian females... or white males ..... or black transgender folks.... as long as they are the best according to the academic standard agreed upon.

It would be honest and refreshing if you spoke to what I and other posters actually say rather than doing battle with strawmen and constant Democratic Party demonizations.
 
She was the top federal prosecutor in Brooklyn. Look it up.

You still haven't come up with a single reason. Just admit the real reason you don't like her TD.

i seem to remember a time when Democratic Senators refused to let the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee go forward simply because they didn't like him.
 
i seem to remember a time when Democratic Senators refused to let the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee go forward simply because they didn't like him.

And? That has nothing to do with what TD is saying. He is saying that she was unqualified and only appointed because she's a black affirmative action hire. I'm asking for evidence of his claim.
 
And? That has nothing to do with what TD is saying. He is saying that she was unqualified and only appointed because she's a black affirmative action hire. I'm asking for evidence of his claim.

And you agree that disliking a nominee is a perfectly valid reason not to confirm him/her?
 
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.

.

Legacy programs are not govt-mandated. AA is. THINK
 
Racist and elitist trash. You couldn't qualify to hang her lifetime achievement certificates on her office wall.

HAHAHA. As usual, all the left has is namcalling. Even they know it's indefensible to have an AG who says illegal invaders have a right to work here.
 
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.

Liberals are knocking down straw men again. She didn't get the job SOLELY because she is black. But it was a big factor and that is as wrong as anything can be.
 
i seem to remember a time when Democratic Senators refused to let the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee go forward simply because they didn't like him.

and worse yet they obstructed the appointment of uber-qualified (all four living Democrat Party Solicitor Generals as well as the ABA gave him top recommendations) Miguel Estrada for an Appellate Court seat because they didn't want Bush later appointing him to the USSC as a Latino
 
Liberals are knocking down straw men again. She didn't get the job SOLELY because she is black. But it was a big factor and that is as wrong as anything can be.

true but I would argue a white woman with the same HS credentials as LL probably would not have been admitted to HLS and someone with only "cum laude" at Harvard who was a white male would not have been admitted into Harvard LS and so forth. Her race got her into a top law school and her race and that top law school degree got her her prior and current jobs
 
Liberals are knocking down straw men again. She didn't get the job SOLELY because she is black. But it was a big factor and that is as wrong as anything can be.

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.
 
Liberals are knocking down straw men again. She didn't get the job SOLELY because she is black. But it was a big factor and that is as wrong as anything can be.

No, not a straw man - I was responding to TD and the term "solely" is his. Here's the actual quote in its entirety:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...10-republicans-vote-her-8.html#post1064560128

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

And if YOU have any evidence it was solely or mostly because she's black, other than she IS black, feel free to provide it. TD has struck out so far.
 
true but I would argue a white woman with the same HS credentials as LL probably would not have been admitted to HLS and someone with only "cum laude" at Harvard who was a white male would not have been admitted into Harvard LS and so forth. Her race got her into a top law school and her race and that top law school degree got her her prior and current jobs

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom