• 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

Yes, and those grand jury's may indict a ham sandwich.

so long as the ham sandwich is not a cop who shot a black kid


turtledude tells us that he was employed as an attorney for the federal department of justice
and he insists that Lynch was appointed only because she is black
is there a stronger argument on these boards to underscore why Affirmative Action is still needed today
a (thankfully, former) federal attorney at the justice department whose opposition to a nominee is that she is black
 
Last edited:
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 have brought up some valuable points there. I will think about this.
 
In theory yes, but it has to be within reason. You cannot appoint a quack to the function of Surgeon General. Selling snake-oil to gullible fools with no medical degree, experience or capacity does not make someone fit to be surgeon general, no matter how much a president would want that.

And you cannot make a pacifist, draft dodging, deserter hippie become secretary of defense.

A president should have a large level of independence for picking his team, but not without oversight. And that is no matter who the president is, democrat or republican, the choice must be a reasonable one or the senate should block it for that reason (not to play political games).

I don't think a reasonable, rational President would pick anyone like you've described, but your hyperbole was entertaining.
 
I don't think a reasonable, rational President would pick anyone like you've described, but your hyperbole was entertaining.

I know that would never happen, just overstated the issue to make it obvious that if a president nominates someone he/she (hopefully one day, if not this electoral season) believes in would do a good job.
 
I know that would never happen, just overstated the issue to make it obvious that if a president nominates someone he/she (hopefully one day, if not this electoral season) believes in would do a good job.

Oh, okay.
 
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?

yeah all those blacks with much lower GPAs and LSAT scores all had such outstanding extracurriculars

that's why they jumped over hundreds upon hundreds of whites with better scores to get into HLS
 
yeah all those blacks with much lower GPAs and LSAT scores all had such outstanding extracurriculars

that's why they jumped over hundreds upon hundreds of whites with better scores to get into HLS

Can you tell us what any of those conclusions you just made have anything to do with the topic and the accusation that she was not the best person for the job and only picked because she is a black female?
 
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.

I'm not on the left, and that position of hers alone isn't enough to scuttle her confirmation. And you are indeed a racist, and as others have pointed out, your avatar is offensive.
 
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

Well of course she's not. Do you know who is. Nor was Alberto Gonzales.
 
Can you tell us what any of those conclusions you just made have anything to do with the topic and the accusation that she was not the best person for the job and only picked because she is a black female?

given Obama keeping Holder in office for as long as he did, that alone damns her
 
given Obama keeping Holder in office for as long as he did, that alone damns her

I have absolutely no idea what that has to do with you failing to be able to state why you believe she is not the best person for the job.
 
I have absolutely no idea what that has to do with you failing to be able to state why you believe she is not the best person for the job.

Obama claims she is the best person for the job. that alone establishes that she is not
 
Obama claims she is the best person for the job. that alone establishes that she is not

That makes no sense on any level. Since she is working for the President, the President is in the best position to decide who is best.

Along this discussion you have presented NO EVIDENCE that she is not the best person for the job. Nor have you presented any evidence that the President picked here just because of her gender and race.
 
That makes no sense on any level. Since she is working for the President, the President is in the best position to decide who is best.

Along this discussion you have presented NO EVIDENCE that she is not the best person for the job. Nor have you presented any evidence that the President picked here just because of her gender and race.

sure he has
he has presented that she is black
which is his sole basis for finding her unqualified

any wonder why he chronically argues against Affirmative Action
that program attempts to offset racial bias such as that he puts on proud public display
it's scary that someone of that racially biased disposition was allowed to serve our federal government as a prosecutor
 
sure he has
he has presented that she is black
which is his sole basis for finding her unqualified

any wonder why he chronically argues against Affirmative Action
that program attempts to offset racial bias such as that he puts on proud public display
it's scary that someone of that racially biased disposition was allowed to serve our federal government as a prosecutor

Good points. The thing that is never explained is the claim that some folks got into places like Harvard Law School with lower GPA's and some test scores that white people and somehow - someway that means our current Attorney General was not the best choice for the job.

They jumped the Grand Canyon with that assumption on the equivalent of a pogo stick.
 
yeah all those blacks with much lower GPAs and LSAT scores all had such outstanding extracurriculars

that's why they jumped over hundreds upon hundreds of whites with better scores to get into HLS

TD: Lynch's was picked only because she's a black woman.
Question: She has a 30 year career in both the public and private sector. What about that career indicates she's not highly qualified?
TD: Her career isn't relevant. Her college GPA and LSAT scores are all anyone needs to know. She is an AA hire. QED.

TD: If a black person is given a preference for college admission, everything they accomplish in life is because he or she is black.
TD: If a rich white boy is given a preference, that's OK because daddy donates money to the school.

You're making a great case why only the graduates from elite colleges are qualified for the top jobs. Your logic is indefensible!
 
Back
Top Bottom