Just sayin’ that at the same time that Republicans tried to end discrimination by race, Democrats simply switched it around. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that they did it shortly after noticing that their voting constintuency had flipped.
As John Robert said, the only way to stop discrimination based on race is to stop discriminating based on race.
Democrats support discrimination based on race. They have since the founding of the party and that has not changed.
This is not true in any meaningful way. It can either mean “there are some people who are Democrats who support discrimination based on race”, in which case there are also Republicans who feel the same way. Or it can mean “almost all Democrats support discrimination based on race”, in which case it’s blatantly untrue.
Let’s call it the party consensus then to be more precise.
I’m also noticing quite a few incidents in recent weeks where Democrats have made racist statements that Republicans would get villified for. Bill Richardson said that Ted Cruz is not a Hispanic. That statement is interesting to me because that’s precisely the kind of talk Republicans hint at without actually coming out and saying it.
Then there’s the call to send Nikki Haley “back to wherever the hell she came from” by the head of the South Carolina Democratic Party. Joe Biden was the next speaker, said not a word. And he himself has a checkered history when it comes to racial gaffes, especially towards Indian-Americans.
When did the title of this thread change to “Desperate Random Mud Flinging”?
Remember all those Democrats with the “Don’t Re-Nig in 2012” bumper stickers and the “It’s called the ‘White House’ for a reason” tweets" and the Witch Doctor photos with Obama’s face pasted in?
Yeah, me neither.
That’s the only Republican response when the next election is discussed…
(Or they’ll send Creepy Ted Cruz out to make another speech. Really, guys–proceed!)
In the scenario you’re describing, does the white person automatically assume they are more more qualified than every other candidate and draw their own conclusion about why they were passed over? Because that guy already votes Republican.
Why is it so obvious in every rant about AA that the person has never considered that they might not be the best?
At any rate, these events have not affected Obama’s popularity.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
That’s not ENTIRELY true, while his approval is close the same, his disapproval has ticked up. But I do think the public is not rushing to judgment here. The President claims to have known nothing about nothing, and so far the public is letting him have that excuse. For now.
“For now.”
You could almost hear the ominous tone and see the knowing sneer, couldn’t you?
Might as well have said, “Unlike me, the public is waiting until they have the facts.”
I love the sound of whistling past the graveyard.
Well, on the IRS scandal, it actually is worse if the administration is telling the truth, and the President doesn’t know what’s going on.
Now he’s just phoning it in. Yawn.
Why is that? It’s an entirely separate agency with zero White House oversight. As it should be.
Should you be held accountable for not knowing what your neighbors two houses down have going on in their basement?
I always like how the situation is routinely described in pure, unambiguous terms, as if “best qualified” is somehow an agreed, objective measure quantifiable to the nth degree of precision: “White candidate scored X, black candidate scored X-10, but black candidate gets 15 extra points just for being black. Is that fair?”
I’ve spent a good portion of my life hiring and promoting people, and I can say I have never heard of any such an unambiguous formula. I also realize that while it’s easier to determine if someone has met the qualifications for a position (hence “qualified”, in which case there’s no such thing as “more/less qualified”), figuring out the “best candidate” is a whole lot murkier and involves considering what’s “best” for me and my organization’s success. So considerations like “will this candidate diversify my workforce/college class/etc.” will most definitely figure into the evaluation–unless of course you’re a racist, which is kinda the whole point of the law.
People often argue we shouldn’t use AA to correct racial discrimination because AA itself discriminates based on race (the essence of the John Roberts quote). This is like saying that no law can improve personal freedom because laws by their nature restrict personal freedom. The argument is ridiculous on its face; it relies on confusion between my personal freedom and the individual freedom of citizens in general.
The IRS is part of the Treasury Department, which is answerable to the President. Geez, that talking point was abandoned early on.
BTW, an agency as powerful as the IRS with no oversight by elected officials would be just a BIT inconsistent with democratic principles.