Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-28-2019, 03:25 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
In Heller, firearms were 1 vote away from being legislated away via new restrictions and attrition. If Clinton were elected, then the two people she would have appointed to SCOTUS would more than likely been sympathetic to her view on firearms. The flood of new cases which would then affirm new laws would be pretty much it for the state of gun culture as it stands now. I have a completely opposite view of the prognosis of where guns have the potential of going than you.
In my view almost everyone should have the right to have a gun in their own home for protection, hunting, hobby, or whatever they want. Most people should also have the right to have a concealed carry permit. Whether they can have an AR-15 is the subject of a reasonable debate, as are the specifics of background checks, red flag laws, etc. HOWEVER, if a candidate disagreed with me on these things, but was not Trump, he or she would get my vote 100% of the time over Trump or a third party (if Trump was on the ballot). In other words, I would not do anything that made a Trump victory more possible because of the gun "issue." We can sort that out later, after Trump is gone.
  #52  
Old 10-28-2019, 03:33 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
In my view almost everyone should have the right to have a gun in their own home for protection, hunting, hobby, or whatever they want. Most people should also have the right to have a concealed carry permit. Whether they can have an AR-15 is the subject of a reasonable debate, as are the specifics of background checks, red flag laws, etc. HOWEVER, if a candidate disagreed with me on these things, but was not Trump, he or she would get my vote 100% of the time over Trump or a third party (if Trump was on the ballot). In other words, I would not do anything that made a Trump victory more possible because of the gun "issue." We can sort that out later, after Trump is gone.
The thing is my vote for POTUS is utterly irrelevant. My state will give all of its electoral votes to Trump no matter what. He's bigger than Jesus here---and Jesus is widely believed to have been a fair skinned blondish dude with blue eyes and a Trump/Pence sticker on the donkey he purportedly rode into Jerusalem.
  #53  
Old 10-28-2019, 04:17 PM
control-z is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 13,002
All a Democrat needs to win over middle America is not be crazy and not fight gun ownership. Fight gun crime all you want, but not gun ownership.
  #54  
Old 10-28-2019, 09:15 PM
Annoyed is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by control-z View Post
All a Democrat needs to win over middle America is not be crazy and not fight gun ownership. Fight gun crime all you want, but not gun ownership.
Pretty much.

Dont be crazy. Dont fight gun ownership. Legalize weed. Medicare for all. Fighting illegal immigration and taking care of the citizen worker.

Democrats are their own worst enemy.
  #55  
Old 11-04-2019, 02:58 PM
Yankees 1996 Champs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Pretty much.

Dont be crazy. Dont fight gun ownership. Legalize weed. Medicare for all. Fighting illegal immigration and taking care of the citizen worker.

Democrats are their own worst enemy.
This.

And also, stop saying that all whites never struggled economically.
  #56  
Old 11-04-2019, 03:00 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
This.

And also, stop saying that all whites never struggled economically.
No one has ever said that
  #57  
Old 11-04-2019, 03:12 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
...And also, stop saying that all whites never struggled economically.
Stop saying it? So, it gets said a lot, then? You providing an example, of the many, should be no problem, right?
Sheesh.
  #58  
Old 11-04-2019, 03:15 PM
Yankees 1996 Champs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
No one has ever said that
Some have said it....that whites can't be poor, they cannot struggle, etc.
  #59  
Old 11-04-2019, 03:20 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
Are you sure it wasn't "many are saying"?
  #60  
Old 11-04-2019, 03:28 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
Some have said it....that whites can't be poor, they cannot struggle, etc.
I havenít read everything anyone has ever said, but Iíd wager no democratic politician has ever said this.
  #61  
Old 11-04-2019, 03:49 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
I haven’t read everything anyone has ever said, but I’d wager no democratic politician has ever said this.
Joe Biden recently said "Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids."

To his credit (sort of) he immediately realized how awful that sounded (to everyone) and followed it up with "Wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids. No, I really mean it. But think how we think about it. We think how we’re going to dumb it down. They can do anything anybody else can do, given a shot."

I think it offered some startling insight into (what's left of) the mind of Joe Biden.

ETA: Do I win the wager?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 11-04-2019 at 03:49 PM.
  #62  
Old 11-04-2019, 03:56 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
Republicans just have to stop being racist.
That is a tall fucking order.
  #63  
Old 11-04-2019, 04:05 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
Frankly I think the GOP would have a really tough time appealing to minorities, simply because of trust and perception. If they took a look at themselves and said "OK what are some positions we take that make minorities think we don't have their best interests" and addressed those, it would take years and possibly decades for minority voters to trust them again.

If they didn't care about actual policy at all and just cared about winning votes in the short-term, I think their best move is to embrace Trump-style Republicanism to solidify the conservative and nationalist white base as much as possible and basically give up on trying to mend fences with minorities. There are obviously long-term considerations as well as the fact that a party is never going to completely abandon policy for a cynical vote-grab.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
Yes, the GOP has a serious race problem with minorities. They only have one Republican senator who is a black Republican, Tim Scott.

Black Republicans like JC Watts and Mia Love are no longer in office.

The Democrats have a race problem with whites.

Both parties are racially balkanized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
Itís not about Republican positions on things like tax policy, gun control, etc. Conservatives will naturally gravitate Republican because the Republican platform is already conservative. All they have to do is make those minor feel welcome in the party by getting rid of the racist white people. The only reason they (Republicans) probably havenít done so is because they probably believe that the number of racist white people is greater than the number of conservative minorities.
I sense a conflation between the terms "minority" and "black" The asian vote has swung wildly from generation to generation. Right now the racism is making asians very Democrat but if you got rid of the racism, asians would drift right. Without the racism, I don't know that jews vote so overwhelmingly for the anti-Israel party. Without the racism, I don't know that hispanics vote so overwhelmingly for the pro-choice party. This is true for many minorities.
  #64  
Old 11-04-2019, 04:10 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
The Democrats donít have a race problem with white people in the same way. They havenít driven white people away because they are racist against whites. Instead theyíve lost the conservative white people because theyíve gotten rid of the conservative Democrats (except for Joe Manchin). I suppose itís possible that there is a hidden pocket of racist but otherwise liberal white people who vote Republican for race reasons, but thatís probably a very small group.
Pro-life Democrats have basically been kicked out of the party.
Pro-gun Democrats have also been kicked out of the party.
This led to more ideological purity tests, particularly on race issues.
  #65  
Old 11-04-2019, 04:17 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Can you list what conservative values you think Donald Trump has delivered on that Hillary Clinton wouldn't have delivered better on?

Note: Saying things like "Trump appointed conservative judges" doesn't count unless you can articulate why you think conservative judges are better than other judges.
Conservative judges are certainly preferable to liberal judges from a conservative standpoint. In fact this is among the only thing that the evangelicals seem to care about. Plenty of evangelicals are conservative but not racist.

Trump is certainly seen by some to be fighting for poor working class [whites] with his trade war and immigration policy.

If he could tone down the racism and the stupid things he says and the stupid things he does and the stupid way he behaves, more people would vote for him.
  #66  
Old 11-04-2019, 04:20 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
I agree. The reason they arenít equal is because there are conservative minorities who would vote Republican if they felt welcome by the white voters in the Republican party. The Democrats donít have a pool of white voters to appeal to who are otherwise liberal but vote Republican because the donít feel welcome in the Democratic party for reasons of race. I donít think such a block of voters exists.

ETA. As Iíve already mentioned, what this means is that for the Republicans the solution for their problem is easy. Stop being racist. The solution for the Democrats is a lot more complicated and would mean having to adopt more conservative positions on a whole host of issues.
There are some working class whites that believe that the Democrats are anti-white and push preferences for minorities over whites.

Rich minorities go to the Democrats because of the Republican racism. Poor whites go to the Republicans because of the Democratic racism.
  #67  
Old 11-04-2019, 04:29 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I'm not sure if people are just taking this point for granted, or maybe some people in this thread are just unaware... the advice the Republicans need to extend their outreach beyond white Americans is NOT about the 2016 election or any fundamental sense of fairness -- it's about betting on an aging horse.

The percentage of white voters in 2016 compared to 2012 dropped by one percent, while the percentage of black voters went up by one, and Hispanic voters went up by two. These trends are expected to continue for the next couple decades.
Not according to wikipedia. White AND black vote represented 1% less of the vote. The asian and hispanic vote represented 1% more of the vote.

Quote:
Republicans continuing to rely on white voters into the future is sort of like someone buying stock in Blockbuster Video in 2010. Blockbuster was still doing fine, but there were enough warning signs that a smart investor should certainly place their bets somewhere else.

Right now, Dems are essentially betting on Netflix in 2005. It's making them good money but they aren't becoming billionaires off of it... in other words, its winning Dems elections a pretty decent amount of the time, but not every time, but it's the long game that counts. Now tell me very clearly why Dems need to invest in Blockbuster.
Because white voters account for 72% of the electorate and will continue to be the majority of the electorate for at least 20 more years. If people really voted according to race, Republicans would have a lock on every election for at least a couple of generations.
  #68  
Old 11-04-2019, 04:34 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post



Because white voters account for 72% of the electorate and will continue to be the majority of the electorate for at least 20 more years. If people really voted according to race, Republicans would have a lock on every election for at least a couple of generations.
What does ďvote according to raceĒ mean? All the white people I know are Democrats.
  #69  
Old 11-04-2019, 05:08 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
No. Not even close.
He opened national parks to people with guns.
He never really paid more than lip service to gun confiscation.
He never paid more than lip service to all sorts of gun control.

He realized that gun control was a political loser.
  #70  
Old 11-04-2019, 05:12 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
What does ďvote according to raceĒ mean? All the white people I know are Democrats.
And we should be fair to them and their children regardless of the color of their skin.
  #71  
Old 11-04-2019, 05:12 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
He opened national parks to people with guns.
He never really paid more than lip service to gun confiscation.
He never paid more than lip service to all sorts of gun control.

He realized that gun control was a political loser.
That does not make him a staunch Second Amendment supporter.
  #72  
Old 11-04-2019, 06:13 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
He opened national parks to people with guns. ...
Senator Coburn did that. Obama was just one of the guys Senator Coburn outsmarted along the way to getting it done.
  #73  
Old 11-04-2019, 07:04 PM
str8cashhomie is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
And we should be fair to them and their children regardless of the color of their skin.
Can you clarify what you mean by this?

Given the subject of this threat it seems like you must be implying that the Democratic party doesn't treat white people fairly.
  #74  
Old 11-04-2019, 09:37 PM
Yankees 1996 Champs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
There are some working class whites that believe that the Democrats are anti-white and push preferences for minorities over whites.

Rich minorities go to the Democrats because of the Republican racism. Poor whites go to the Republicans because of the Democratic racism.
This.

Prince George's County, MD is the wealthiest black county in American history, more than Fulton/Gwinnett/DeKalb, GA.

Those are American Dream black professionals; doctors, lawyers, scientists, small business owners, athletes, journalists, bloggers.

They would be black Republicans because of the taxes. But the GOP is so racially toxic, that they vote Democratic and most of PG County's representatives are Democratic.
  #75  
Old 11-04-2019, 10:41 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Conservative judges are certainly preferable to liberal judges from a conservative standpoint.
But if you can't explain why conservatism is better than liberalism than it's a pretty ignorant viewpoint. People shouldn't treat politics like it's sports and cheer for a team just because it's their team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
If he could tone down the racism and the stupid things he says and the stupid things he does and the stupid way he behaves, more people would vote for him.
Subtract all the stupidity out of Donald Trump and there might not be enough left to vote for.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 11-04-2019 at 10:43 PM.
  #76  
Old 11-05-2019, 08:41 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
That does not make him a staunch Second Amendment supporter.
You said "No. Not even close."

This may not make him close to being a staunch supporter but it's not like he's Feinstein.

He knows an AR-15 ban is pointless. He knows that gun control is a political loser but he still has to appease the gun control folks by paying lip service.
  #77  
Old 11-05-2019, 08:46 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
Can you clarify what you mean by this?

Given the subject of this threat it seems like you must be implying that the Democratic party doesn't treat white people fairly.
No. It doesn't. Everything is viewed through an intersectional woke SJW lens.

It places diversity ahead of merit and in the case of colleges and universities, this frequently means preferences for middle class and wealthy black and hispanic kids over poor kids of any other race.
  #78  
Old 11-05-2019, 08:59 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
But if you can't explain why conservatism is better than liberalism than it's a pretty ignorant viewpoint.
So you don't think that conservative judges are preferable from a conservative standpoint? Why would I have to establish that the conservatism is better from the conservative viewpoint?

Quote:
People shouldn't treat politics like it's sports and cheer for a team just because it's their team.
You mean like the kneejerk opposition to all conservative nominees to the Supreme Court?

Quote:
Subtract all the stupidity out of Donald Trump and there might not be enough left to vote for.
This election will be closer than you may think. Assuming that Trump is an incompetent boob is a pretty good way to lose this election.

His actions resonate with three groups of people that I can think of:

Staunch partisans that will support anything with an R next to their name.
Racists and white supremacists who have Pavlovian responses to dog whistles.
Working class whites who feel like the Democrats care about everyone except them.

He can do no wrong when it comes to the first two groups.

Between his immigration policy and trade war with China, he is viewed by working class whites as protecting them from foreign competition.
You might be able to tear away some of the last group but you have to start channeling a Bernie Sanders "worker's party" platform.
  #79  
Old 11-05-2019, 09:14 AM
str8cashhomie is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
No. It doesn't. Everything is viewed through an intersectional woke SJW lens.

It places diversity ahead of merit and in the case of colleges and universities, this frequently means preferences for middle class and wealthy black and hispanic kids over poor kids of any other race.
If this is true the democrats are doing a terrible job of it, because black and Latino students are still underrepresented compared to white students.

https://hechingerreport.org/facts-ab...ege-admission/

I understand why "restorative justice" such as affirmative action is controversial, but there seems to be an attempt on this thread to draw an equivalence between affirmative action and GOP policies that legitimately deny several minority groups of equal rights, and the facts just don't back that up. If they did, we wouldn't continue to see numbers demonstrating that black and Latino people are still less likely to go to college, less likely to go to more competitive schools and more likely to have a tough time affording it than white people. Given that we still have all those things, the fact that affirmative action is still functioning as restorative justice is clear.
  #80  
Old 11-05-2019, 09:28 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
This.

Prince George's County, MD is the wealthiest black county in American history, more than Fulton/Gwinnett/DeKalb, GA.

Those are American Dream black professionals; doctors, lawyers, scientists, small business owners, athletes, journalists, bloggers.

They would be black Republicans because of the taxes. But the GOP is so racially toxic, that they vote Democratic and most of PG County's representatives are Democratic.
Not all of them, but a lot more than they have now. It used to be that Republicans relegated the racists to a small corner of their tent where they could express their racist views in hushed whispers and dog whistles. But they would get kicked out of the tent if anyone else caught them being overtly racist.

I don't know about other minority groups but asians probably wouldn't be so overwhelmingly Democratic but for the racism.
  #81  
Old 11-05-2019, 09:46 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
If this is true the democrats are doing a terrible job of it, because black and Latino students are still underrepresented compared to white students.
And you think this is for a lack of trying? There are only so many levers they can pull without violating the constitution.

You could replace black with poor and get similar results.

Quote:
I understand why "restorative justice" such as affirmative action is controversial, but there seems to be an attempt on this thread to draw an equivalence between affirmative action and GOP policies that legitimately deny several minority groups of equal rights, and the facts just don't back that up. If they did, we wouldn't continue to see numbers demonstrating that black and Latino people are still less likely to go to college, less likely to go to more competitive schools and more likely to have a tough time affording it than white people. Given that we still have all those things, the fact that affirmative action is still functioning as restorative justice is clear.
What does restorative justice have to do with preferences for hispanics?
  #82  
Old 11-05-2019, 09:52 AM
str8cashhomie is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
And you think this is for a lack of trying? There are only so many levers they can pull without violating the constitution.
It's entirely possible for the Supreme Court to get it wrong, but they have upheld affirmative action, so if you really think it doesn't pass constitutional muster the onus would be on you to demonstrate that

EDIT: Sorry misread this comment. No as Republicans have repeatedly shown, it is entirely possible to oppress racial groups, including denying them constitutional rights, if you have enough support to do so.

Quote:
You could replace black with poor and get similar results.
This is true, but this fact has nothing to do with affirmative action. I'm not actually aware of any Democratic policy that leads to this so I have no idea why you would pin it on the dems.

Quote:
What does restorative justice have to do with preferences for hispanics?
The fact that there is still an educational achievement gap between hispanics and whites.

Last edited by str8cashhomie; 11-05-2019 at 09:54 AM.
  #83  
Old 11-05-2019, 09:58 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
No. It doesn't. Everything is viewed through an intersectional woke SJW lens.



It places diversity ahead of merit and in the case of colleges and universities, this frequently means preferences for middle class and wealthy black and hispanic kids over poor kids of any other race.
The party does this? That's ridiculous. Sounds like Limbaugh and Hannity.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #84  
Old 11-05-2019, 11:56 AM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
This.

Prince George's County, MD is the wealthiest black county in American history, more than Fulton/Gwinnett/DeKalb, GA.

Those are American Dream black professionals; doctors, lawyers, scientists, small business owners, athletes, journalists, bloggers.

They would be black Republicans because of the taxes. But the GOP is so racially toxic, that they vote Democratic and most of PG County's representatives are Democratic.
I'm not sure why you think black professionals would be more Republican than white professionals. "Taxes" aren't everything. Maybe I'm in a liberal bubble over here by Seattle, but all the doctors, lawyers, scientists I know vote Democratic. (I don't know any small business owners, athletes, journalists or bloggers well enough to know how they vote) Sure, people like me would rather pay less in taxes, but even if we had sane Republicans in office, I don't see how they'd get my vote.
  #85  
Old 11-05-2019, 01:02 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
You could replace black with poor and get similar results.
And how do you account for the fact that black people are more likely to be poor than white people? Assuming you don't want to use racism as an explanation?
  #86  
Old 11-05-2019, 01:27 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
It's entirely possible for the Supreme Court to get it wrong, but they have upheld affirmative action, so if you really think it doesn't pass constitutional muster the onus would be on you to demonstrate that
There are many forms of affirmative action that are in fact unconstitutional. The ones that would most reliably achieve racial balance tend to be unconstitutional. See quotas.

Quote:
EDIT: Sorry misread this comment. No as Republicans have repeatedly shown, it is entirely possible to oppress racial groups, including denying them constitutional rights, if you have enough support to do so.
Can you give me a contemporary example of this?

Quote:
This is true, but this fact has nothing to do with affirmative action. I'm not actually aware of any Democratic policy that leads to this so I have no idea why you would pin it on the dems.
I am saying that. I'm saying that your cite may be meaningless. Much of what you may perceive as racial disparity might actually be class disparity.

Quote:
The fact that there is still an educational achievement gap between hispanics and whites.
What are you restoring for Hispanics? Perhaps we have different ideas of what restorative justice means. Restorative justice as I understand it has nothing to do with gaps in achievement or disparities in income/wealth. It requires some past harm that the restorative justice is trying to reverse.
  #87  
Old 11-05-2019, 01:28 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The party does this? That's ridiculous. Sounds like Limbaugh and Hannity.
Did you miss the next sentence?

"It places diversity ahead of merit and in the case of colleges and universities, this frequently means preferences for middle class and wealthy black and hispanic kids over poor kids of any other race. "
  #88  
Old 11-05-2019, 01:38 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
And how do you account for the fact that black people are more likely to be poor than white people? Assuming you don't want to use racism as an explanation?
What does that have to do with the merit vs racial preference question that we are discussing?

Are you saying that Democrats do NOT sacrifice merit for racial diversity?

If you want to discuss why black people are more likely to be poor, I suppose you could look at

legacy of slavery and segregation

but also

rates of teenage pregnancy
single parent households
hours spent reading

Hispanics don't have a legacy of slavery.
What rationale for their racial preferences?
Diversity over merit.
  #90  
Old 11-05-2019, 03:14 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Did you miss the next sentence?



"It places diversity ahead of merit and in the case of colleges and universities, this frequently means preferences for middle class and wealthy black and hispanic kids over poor kids of any other race. "
That's not something the party does. You have a beef with the particular form of AA utilized by many universities. That's not a Democratic party policy.

And I think those universities' policies are pretty unfair. And like most things, they're generally unfair in a way that benefits rich white folks - legacies, kids of donors, and so forth.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #91  
Old 11-05-2019, 03:29 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
What does that have to do with the merit vs racial preference question that we are discussing?

Are you saying that Democrats do NOT sacrifice merit for racial diversity?
I haven't heard anyone advocating sacrifing merit for racial diversity in the Democratic Party. There's no need to sacrifice merit for racial diversity. Sometimes racial preference simply means expanding the pool you're searching in. Our law firm, for example, was pretty white and male. We decided that wasn't good for us, our clients, or society in general. We started looking for non-white candidates for our next associate. The one we found was quickly viewed as our most valuable new hire since our founding 40 years ago. I'm sure there were plenty of qualified white guys who could have done the job, but the guy we found has the skills, intellect and personality to be a superstar in a few years. We wouldn't have found him without affirmatively seeking a minority candidate. And I don't think he expected to land at our firm like ours.

As for colleges and universities, I don't see any unfairness in trying to achieve a diverse student body (and faculty) If a school has 100 spots available and 300 qualified applicants, I don't care if they pick and choose in that group of 300 to achieve diversity. That's not sacrificing merit. All 300 are qualified, although some will have higher test scores, other higher GPA, and still others have interesting extra-curricular accomplishments. The idea that there is an objective and fair way to rank the group of 300 in merit-based order is a myth.
  #92  
Old 11-05-2019, 03:57 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That's not something the party does. You have a beef with the particular form of AA utilized by many universities. That's not a Democratic party policy.
Voter ID laws, gerrymandering and white supremacy are not Republican party policies but that's what they do.

How many non-Asian Democrats object to discrimination against Asians in the admissions process?

Quote:
And I think those universities' policies are pretty unfair. And like most things, they're generally unfair in a way that benefits rich white folks - legacies, kids of donors, and so forth.
They also benefit blacks and hispanics.

The effects of legacy preferences and athletic preferences seem relatively small compared to racial preferences:

https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files...une%202005.pdf

So in light of that, do you still think these preferences are mostly just benefitting rich white folks?

Poor white kids get screwed by this too.
  #93  
Old 11-05-2019, 04:03 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
I haven't heard anyone advocating sacrifing merit for racial diversity in the Democratic Party.
They don't explicitly say they want to sacrifice merit for diversity but that's the intent and effect of their positions. See the push to eliminate the SHSAT from the admissions process at NYC's specialized high schools.

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs...dmissions-test

Quote:
There's no need to sacrifice merit for racial diversity. Sometimes racial preference simply means expanding the pool you're searching in. Our law firm, for example, was pretty white and male. We decided that wasn't good for us, our clients, or society in general. We started looking for non-white candidates for our next associate. The one we found was quickly viewed as our most valuable new hire since our founding 40 years ago. I'm sure there were plenty of qualified white guys who could have done the job, but the guy we found has the skills, intellect and personality to be a superstar in a few years. We wouldn't have found him without affirmatively seeking a minority candidate. And I don't think he expected to land at our firm like ours.
Sure. I don't disagree with using race as a tie-breaker. That's not how affirmative action is implemented in most situations today.

Quote:
As for colleges and universities, I don't see any unfairness in trying to achieve a diverse student body (and faculty) If a school has 100 spots available and 300 qualified applicants, I don't care if they pick and choose in that group of 300 to achieve diversity. That's not sacrificing merit. All 300 are qualified, although some will have higher test scores, other higher GPA, and still others have interesting extra-curricular accomplishments. The idea that there is an objective and fair way to rank the group of 300 in merit-based order is a myth.
When you set the bar for "qualified" low enough to achieve diversity, you are sacrificing merit for diversity. Are you going to argue that this is not what is going on?
  #94  
Old 11-05-2019, 04:09 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post

When you set the bar for "qualified" low enough to achieve diversity, you are sacrificing merit for diversity. Are you going to argue that this is not what is going on?
Yes. (Well, I don't intend to actually argue it. I'll just say it. That's not what's going on. The bar is not being set low.)
  #95  
Old 11-05-2019, 04:10 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
What does that have to do with the merit vs racial preference question that we are discussing?

Are you saying that Democrats do NOT sacrifice merit for racial diversity?
I think your central assumption is wrong.

Your argument is based on the premise that when a company has a policy of hiring only white people it's because of merit. But why assume white people are better employees than non-white people?

You could just as easily argue that a policy of hiring only white people is a racist policy. And that a company that switches to strictly merit hiring will end up hiring people from different ethnic backgrounds because merit appears in all ethnic groups.

Why do you define hiring black people as a racial preference but you don't define hiring white people as a racial preference? And why do you define hiring white people as merit hiring rather than racial preference hiring?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
If you want to discuss why black people are more likely to be poor, I suppose you could look at

legacy of slavery and segregation

but also

rates of teenage pregnancy
single parent households
hours spent reading

Hispanics don't have a legacy of slavery.
What rationale for their racial preferences?
Diversity over merit.
Sure, go ahead and throw all these things in. But now ask yourself why these disparities exist.

Is there something inherently in black people that causes them to be poor? To be less educated? To have higher rates of unemployment? To have higher arrest rates? Are these things all caused by some black gene?

Or are these things being done to black people? And if society is placing disadvantages on black people that it's not placing on white people and is denying advantages to black people that are not denied to white people, isn't that the definition of racism? If so, then shouldn't society be trying to make changes in order to stop this racism?
  #96  
Old 11-05-2019, 04:25 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Voter ID laws, gerrymandering and white supremacy are not Republican party policies but that's what they do.



How many non-Asian Democrats object to discrimination against Asians in the admissions process?
I suspect the vast majority of Democrats who believe that these admissions policies discriminate against Asians object to them. I suspect most Democrats haven't heard your arguments.



Quote:
They also benefit blacks and hispanics.
Perhaps, but only a relative few, at best.



Quote:
The effects of legacy preferences and athletic preferences seem relatively small compared to racial preferences:



https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files...une%202005.pdf



So in light of that, do you still think these preferences are mostly just benefitting rich white folks?



Poor white kids get screwed by this too.
I think the overall system mostly benefits rich white folks (this study didn't appear to look at wealth at all). These particular preferences appear to me to be poorly designed and partially unfair in a way that probably harms everyone except a very select few, most of whom are probably wealthy and white.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 11-05-2019 at 04:28 PM.
  #97  
Old 11-05-2019, 04:27 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Yes. (Well, I don't intend to actually argue it. I'll just say it. That's not what's going on. The bar is not being set low.)
So the most competitive colleges in the country accept black applicants whose test scores are on average over 2 standard deviations lower than asian applicants, you dont think they are compromising standards for the sake of diversity?

Why did the graduation rate and rate of graduating with honor go from troublingly low and embarrassingly low to average when they got rid of racial preferences in California public colleges? Were those black and hispanic kids with lower graduation rates and much lower rate of graduating with honors at UCLA really just as qualified as other students?
  #98  
Old 11-05-2019, 04:39 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think your central assumption is wrong.

Your argument is based on the premise that when a company has a policy of hiring only white people it's because of merit. But why assume white people are better employees than non-white people?
Wait. Where do I say anything like that? I think that would be pretty racist and not merit based.

Quote:
You could just as easily argue that a policy of hiring only white people is a racist policy. And that a company that switches to strictly merit hiring will end up hiring people from different ethnic backgrounds because merit appears in all ethnic groups.
I agree with this statement. Why do you think I do not?

Quote:
Why do you define hiring black people as a racial preference but you don't define hiring white people as a racial preference? And why do you define hiring white people as merit hiring rather than racial preference hiring?
This does not resemble anything I said.

Quote:
Sure, go ahead and throw all these things in. But now ask yourself why these disparities exist.
I dont know. They didnt exist 75 years ago, at least not to this extent. The conservatives blame it on the welfare state and a deterioration of culture and community standards. Liberals blame it on over incarceration, the war on drugs, and maybe toxic masculinity.

Ask yourself if you will accept any answer that lays any of the responsibility for the state of black america at the feet of liberals or black America.

Quote:
Is there something inherently in black people that causes them to be poor? To be less educated? To have higher rates of unemployment? To have higher arrest rates? Are these things all caused by some black gene?
I suspect its cultural.

Quote:
Or are these things being done to black people? And if society is placing disadvantages on black people that it's not placing on white people and is denying advantages to black people that are not denied to white people, isn't that the definition of racism? If so, then shouldn't society be trying to make changes in order to stop this racism?
Let's put blacks to the side for a moment. Do you think hispanics deserve the same consideration? How about asians?

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 11-05-2019 at 04:40 PM.
  #99  
Old 11-05-2019, 04:48 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I suspect the vast majority of Democrats who believe that these admissions policies discriminate against Asians object to them. I suspect most Democrats haven't heard your arguments.
That's the problem, too many Democrats dont consider this to be discriminatory because its happening to asians. A junior partner in civil rights. Some Democrats would like them to be silent partners.

They tune out as soon as you question Democratic orthodoxy on AA.

Quote:
Perhaps, but only a relative few, at best.
That is pretty clearly contradicted by the link.

Quote:
I think the overall system mostly benefits rich white folks (this study didn't appear to look at wealth at all). These particular preferences appear to me to be poorly designed and partially unfair in a way that probably harms everyone except a very select few, most of whom are probably wealthy and white.
How does a preference for blacks and hispanics help rich whites?
  #100  
Old 11-05-2019, 04:57 PM
str8cashhomie is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
That's the problem, too many Democrats dont consider this to be discriminatory because its happening to asians. A junior partner in civil rights. Some Democrats would like them to be silent partners.
You put stuff like this out and not back it up.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017