You don’t say!
No, he did not. This is false. He did say he would pick a woman, but made no statement about “of color”. In fact many people thought he might pick Warren.
You’re right. He didn’t say what I said he did, thanks.
He said he wanted it to be a woman or a person of color, then he said it would be a woman.
The explicit pressure and statements that it needed to be specifically a woman of color came from other people.
Whenever talk of affirmative action comes up it always seems like the assumption is that best possible candidates are being refused jobs to make way for unqualified minorities. That is not the way it has every worked. Leaving aside things like political elections where the process is a matter of convincing the population, AA was always a matter of the margins. College admittance or civil service entry usually worked on a point system of some kind. X points for a test score (entry exam/SAT), maybe Y for being a veteran, Z points for having a parent be an alum, etc. To encourage diversity and help level the playing field, maybe give a certain amount of points for a specific demographic. The minimums were always still in place. It would never take someone from the bottom of the pile to the top. If you had 100 positions and 1000 candidates, you might see a bump from 104th to 98th. And that sucks for the person that would have been 100th and is now 101st. But that is life on the margins. It could have been a veteran, a legacy hire, or a cut in openings that pushed that person out.
In these discussions you hardly ever hear "my kid can’t get a job/get into college because of veterans or legacy students.” It is always those women/minorities keeping them out.
And to add to add on to what @amarinth said, there is a big difference between looking at a list of people who qualify for a job overall and picking one based on diversity/affirmative action and rejecting all qualified applicants to pick someone who fits a profile. The unstated assumption seems to be that, by definition, minorities and women are unqualified. Therefore any pick that is not a white male is just PC nonsense.
Ulfreida I just want to say I appreciate the insights you’ve provided here and that story about the obnoxious little boy straight-up made me cry.
Kid probably grew up to become Stephen Miller. 
thank you. I cried too.
Here’s a relevant bit of info. I was talking to my therapist about the pure, blinding rage trap I sometimes fall into when dealing with political opponents. I get so angry sometimes I cannot stand it. She suggested a technique called mentalizing, which is typically used to help people with Borderline Personality Disorder (which I do not have) or children who had poor models of emotion regulation growing up (which I did have.) I think it might have practical application in today’s political climate. Essentially it’s about recognizing when you’re being emotionally triggered and taking steps to consider how the other person’s experience and mental state could be influencing their behavior.
I found this Open Thermometer exercise online. It’s used to help people assess their own mental state before acting. There are some other exercises on the website, though some are directed at children.
This is a suggestion for people like me who keep falling into a rage trap or experience heightened emotions they find distressing. I sought out more information after I totally lost my shit on someone’s Facebook page yesterday. I guess my point is, learning to empathize may not be something you do for the other person, but rather something you do for yourself.
does that include Fox?
Fox presents it’s audience with a mixture of Republican propaganda and legitimate news. They do vilify some people, but it’s not the white working class.
That is why I am anti death penalty. It might be me!
It’s one of the reasons why I’m against the death penalty. Playing into that is that I have actually been falsely accused (as in actual complaints made to police) and very well could have ended up in prison either time, not to mention the false accusation for one was something for which some vigilantes delight in “correcting the justice system’s error”. No, there are far too many errors in the system, even inherent errors, to allow execution as a punishment for any crime.
It’s also why I don’t like the way victim impact statements are presented in court. During the trial, the lawyers question witnesses and address the court, not the opposing counsel nor the defendant directly. Why, then, is someone who is supposedly presenting a statement to the court not addressing the court, but rather directly excoriating the accused? Part of the answer, of course, is to sway the judge when it comes to sentencing. It’s taking the judicial system back towards revenge.