He didn’t go to law school at Stanford. Did you mean undergraduate? Because, as far as I can tell, if AA lets guys like the Castro brothers into great schools for undergrad studies who go onto do well in prestigious law schools like Harvard, start their own law firms, and become mayors, congressmen, and cabinet members, then that’s a pretty solid argument for AA.
I’m not persuaded that Hillary is an AA candidate.
It’s entirely possible for reasonable people to disagree on whether or not Hillary is qualified to be President.
If you’d prefer “your candidate is awful in every way” type sniping, that’s okay – I’ll gladly offer that your candidates are awful.
Serious question: Aren’t we kidding ourselves if we think that any VP candidate is going to help? Thinking back on all the presidential races I can recall, the VP candidates have at best made no difference (Reagan/Bush or Obama/Biden) and at worst been a noticeable burden (McCain/Palin or Mondale/Ferrarro). I would consider Al Gore and Dan Quayle to both be somewhere in between: a slight burden, but mild enough that it didn’t derail the ticket.
The only case where the VP candidate might have actually helped was Kerry/Edwards, but only because John Kerry was so painfully uncharismatic.
I agree, which is why I think it’s likely that Hillary (if she’s nominated) would pick someone that might help the party in the long term (and be a good candidate in 2024).
Yes, I should have said undergraduate. My mistake.
And it’s the same argument as against AA in general - there is no reason to believe that a better-qualified person would not have benefitted the same or more, and gone on to do the same or better, if not for the officially-sanctioned discrimination of AA. So yes, goody for these two. Tough shit for the other, better-qualified candidates who worked harder or were naturally more gifted than the Castros, and then got screwed because they were the wrong ethnicity.
I didn’t expect to persuade you.
No, that was much of my point. BG doesn’t want to talk about anything negative about Dems, so he did his usual schtick of not-very-veiled accusations of lying. That’s too bad, but if he chooses to play that way, he gets it back.
Just so you know: People who are not white males but who nevertheless achieve greater accomplishments and status than you ever have are not automatically Affirmative Action beneficiaries.
And as a serious response, the Castro brothers ‘proved’ they were actually Stanford-worthy by doing very well in Stanford, getting into Harvard law school, and doing very well in Harvard law school.
Or they (those who are supposedly “screwed” by being the wrong ethnicity) benefitted from their ethnicity (treated better by teachers, society in general, better role models, blah blah blah), and that’s why they scored higher on the SATs, rather than harder work or more natural talent. You know, kind of the premise of AA.
I’d be against AA if I believed that society really was equal, and things like test scores were pure and accurate indicators of ability and work ethic between various groups. But I don’t, so I think AA is necessary even in its imperfections – better than no AA in our profoundly unequal society.
I know you disagree, but I’m just trying to point out that my view is consistent and reasonable, and we just differ on some assumptions (including perhaps whether AA is better than no AA if we agree society is unequal).
On what basis do you think the Castros were *not *as hard-working or naturally-gifted as anyone? Is it because of this “ethnicity” thing you mention? :dubious:
I disagree. It is ludicrous for anyone to assert that Ms. Clinton is not qualified to be president. Ridiculous. Almost idiotic. For someone to assert that she would be a horrible president, that for political or other reasons they would hate to see her as president, that they oppose her and everything she supports–that’s a different story. Unqualified? Bah.
I rise to quibble with you, sir. A minor point, to be sure, but that’s the trouble with quibbles…
Does “qualified” even exist? Our Presidents are no longer people but committees, perhaps it was ever thus. But the best President might be a person of modest gifts who can pick advisers who are truly expert in their fields, and who is willing to listen, willing to defer to expertise.
I don’t much like Ms. Clinton, I am still pissed about the Clintonista movement shifting the Dem party to a menshevik, “business friendly”, Republican Lite positioning. Feh!, as they say in Lubbock. But I like that she is female, in a broad and general way, they are better at consensus and listening, skills often sorely lacking in a man who thinks himself a Leader of Men. I’ve seen their ways too often for my liking.
Anyway, if I could vote for Dukakis, sure as hell I can vote for Hillary.
True. She has been involved in national politics and government in various capacities for at least 15 years now. Any mistakes she might make will not be those of a clueless Beltway outsider.
Possibly. I’ve only seen him speak a few times, and I’ve never seen him debate or answer questions from the press (unless you count Bill Maher’s show).
No, it gave him a chance. AA didn’t mean he didn’t have to study and didn’t have to do his coursework or pass his exams. It just gave him a chance that he otherwise wouldn’t have had. Sort of like how legacy admission criteria gave W a chance.
His success and achievement suggests that he was indeed more than qualified to attend Stanford. “Qualified” for a school can be from more than just test scores.
