patrick.net

To some degree it is. But I think it's also that Democratic party elite (liberal elite as I call them), that's how they control everything.

In CA when I look around, liberal elite owns everything, and they know how to sucker people here too.

So true, many (mostly) insightful comments. Add in the era of grape-skinned whiny bitching without pushback and viola, current era explained.

Aphroman says

accusations of racism occur because of actual racism

Much like you demonstrated earlier today. I guess if Leftists can’t find any conservatives being racist, they’ll say some racist things just to get the ball rolling!

HeadSet says

racism exists

It's endemic to humanity just like greed, envy, lust or any of the other bad qualities. Any member of a minority who claims their particular tribe can't be racist because of this or that reason is just fooling themselves.

The answer imho is to set up a balance between rewards worth working for, and a safety net for those citizens who are having trouble for one reason or another but are still part of our country.

My mother started a travel agency and it did pretty well for a while. Then she got a brain tumor and simply could not keep it going (along with the fact that airlines were cutting commissions). So she was winning from her own efforts for a while, but lost the business through no fault of her own in the end. I was really grateful that she had Medicaid for the last few months of her life. Private insurance failed her. Yet she was pretty well taken care of by the "socialist" medical program which worked as intended.

We can and should argue about where the line between one's own earnings and government support should be drawn, but it's not either-or.

Patrick says

It is easier to blame exclusion than to admit your own failure

This is obviously true, for some specific people. But then there are literally millions of Black and Latino folks that agree with this 100%, while simultaneously also seeing racism out there (but not using it as an excuse).

There are those of us that are pretty balanced in our view. There are even a lot of republicans that agree with your statement here, but would never oversimplify the racism issue down to this, nor would they use the general term "leftists" in the way that you, CBOE and others do. There are many of us moderate democrats that more or less deplore identity politics, just as there are republicans that deplore racism in a way very different way than you do.

You never hear me generalizing that right wingers are racist ( although any thinking person knows that Trump doesn't get elected in 2016 without racism ).

Maybe thats what some on the far left are reacting to (not that it isn't stupid and only adding to the tribalism). These things aren't nearly as simple as many would make them.

You're right, I shouldn't generalize to "leftists". It's a convenient shorthand for the worst people on that side, but it is divisive.

I'll try to avoid that term and stick to specific issues.

Patrick says

I shouldn't generalize to "leftists". It's a convenient shorthand for the worst people on that side, but it is divisive.

Yes it is a convenient shorthand for the ultra conservative Left which wants total government control to enforce Cultural Marxism and all the horrors which go with that ideology.

Marcus has made progress away from that sink hole. Sorry if I’m talking about users but I’m at least not being negative!

Aphroman says

Need proof?

You have zero credibility so yes, every statement you make requires proof.

marcus says

although any thinking person knows that Trump doesn't get elected in 2016 without racism

Trump got elected because 200+ counties that voted for Obama in 2008 flipped and voted for Trump in 2016. Were they racist then, or just when they voted for Trump?

Here's a hard truth.

IN GENERAL, victimization ideology centered around race and gender are crutches that generally unsuccessful people use to explain shortcomings in their own lives.

Goran_K says

Here's a hard truth.

IN GENERAL, victimization ideology centered around race and gender are crutches that generally unsuccessful people use to explain shortcomings in their own lives.

Good--remember that the next time someone complains about Harvard not accepting Asians. Or white men getting screwed.

LeonDurham says

Goran_K says

Here's a hard truth.

IN GENERAL, victimization ideology centered around race and gender are crutches that generally unsuccessful people use to explain shortcomings in their own lives.

Good--remember that the next time someone complains about Harvard not accepting Asians. Or white men getting screwed.

Falae equivalency - there are no laws/governances favoring Asians or Whites amd discriminating against the other races. Vice versa though there are plenty.

mell says

Falae equivalency - there are no laws/governances favoring Asians or Whites amd discriminating against thw other races. Vice versa though there are plenty.

No--perfect equivalency. One side complains about societal inequities causing them to fail, the other complains about law/governances. Both are excuses

Goran_K says

marcus says

although any thinking person knows that Trump doesn't get elected in 2016 without racism

Trump got elected because 200+ counties that voted for Obama in 2008 flipped and voted for Trump in 2016. Were they racist then, or just when they voted for Trump?

Yes, and Trump was going up against a white woman. Maybe next time try "Trump doesn't get elected in 2016 without misogeny" when you want to throw a slogan.

LeonDurham says

Good--remember that the next time someone complains about Harvard not accepting Asians. Or white men getting screwed.

That's real state sponsored Democrat racism though. Not fake imagined victimization.

LeonDurham says

No--perfect equivalency.

No, mell is correct. You're making a dishonest comparison about ACTUAL real racism versus "amorphous" imagined victimization.

personal

HeadSet says

Yes, and Trump was going up against a white woman. Maybe next time try "Trump doesn't get elected in 2016 without misogeny" when you want to throw a slogan.

That too!

LeonDurham says

Nope--victimization

You're wrong, completely and utterly wrong.

For instance, Harvard actually has an admissions policy that hurts asian admissions by artificially allowing less of them to enter the school.

Your claim is based on.... nothing... maybe something... but definitely nothing you can point to (because if you could, you would, just like I did without hesitation).

Also tatupu, keep your shit on topic and not personal. I really don't like having your crap deleted, I want you to participate, but as a good member who follows the rules and doesn't try to slide insults into every post when you disagree with someone. Thanks!

Goran_K says

You're wrong, completely and utterly wrong.

For instance, Harvard actually has an admissions policy that hurts asian admissions by artificially allowing less of them to enter the school.

Your claim is based on.... nothing... maybe something... but definitely nothing you can point to (because if you could, you would, just like I did without hesitation).

Nope, I'm right. It's pure victimization.

Lots of Asians get into Harvard. If one doesn't make the cut, it's their own fault.

Goran_K says

Also tatupu, keep your shit on topic and not personal. I really don't like having your crap deleted, I want you to participate, but as a good member who follows the rules and doesn't try to slide insults into every post when you disagree with someone. Thanks!

lol--nice trolling.

@Patrick--

Here's another example of your moderation failing. One of your moderators is purposely baiting a poster in an effort to start a "battle". This is typical.

HEYYOU says

How many on the Right have been found to be sexual perverts? Kavanaugh?

The only proven pervert in this case so far is Christine Ford: suffering from rape fantasy (false memory of being gang-raped by 4 guys nearly 4 decades ago, as teased out by her therapist); how those 4 guys in her false memory merged into Kavanaugh is anyone's guess, perhaps having something to do with Christine's brother being a partner at the law firm that worked for Fusion GPS.

Patrick says

You're right, I shouldn't generalize to "leftists". It's a convenient shorthand for the worst people on that side, but it is divisive.

I'll try to avoid that term and stick to specific issues.

Patrick,

Reminder that this is what you are dealing with. One of the 3 MAJOR MSM networks, and this was their coverage:
www.youtube.com/embed/l7qosAgxlf0

When I say propaganda, I don't mean its from the fringe.

CovfefeButDeadly says

When I say propaganda, I don't mean its from the fringe.

Agreed.

LeonDurham says

No--perfect equivalency. One side complains about societal inequities causing them to fail, the other complains about law/governances. Both are excuses

Either argument is irrelevant. The civil rights act made it ILLEGAL to discriminate based on race. Not just if you feel like it. Not just if it creates a “bad” outcome. Not just if people don’t like you discriminating. It’s illegal. Do we have laws or don’t we?

Quigley says

LeonDurham says

No--perfect equivalency. One side complains about societal inequities causing them to fail, the other complains about law/governances. Both are excuses

Either argument is irrelevant. The civil rights act made it ILLEGAL to discriminate based on race. Not just if you feel like it. Not just if it creates a “bad” outcome. Not just if people don’t like you discriminating. It’s illegal. Do we have laws or don’t we?

That's the crux of it. These laws discriminating against Whites and Asians are unconstitutional (and racist) and should have been overthrown long ago. Citing socio-economical disadvantages - whether they exist or not - as a basis for enacting discriminatory laws is never ok, unethical and unconstitutional.

LeonDurham says

Goran_K says

You're wrong, completely and utterly wrong.

For instance, Harvard actually has an admissions policy that hurts asian admissions by artificially allowing less of them to enter the school.

Your claim is based on.... nothing... maybe something... but definitely nothing you can point to (because if you could, you would, just like I did without hesitation).

Nope, I'm right. It's pure victimization.

Lots of Asians get into Harvard. If one doesn't make the cut, it's their own fault.

Let me see ... Al Gore Jr (white guy, son of a senator, rich & connected) got into Harvard undergrad. Afterwards, even with a C average, he'd attended Vanderbilt Law School only to flunk out. Yes, straight F's on his first year finals.

How many Asians, with high GPAs, who didn't make the cut to get into Harvard undergrad, can brag about flunking out of grad school?

The Asians who do get into HU undergrad have two things ... a mix of connections and silly extracurriculars where they get to show that they helped some stupid committee on Darfur relief.

I've worked with them in the past, none of them strike me as Goethe, Newton, and Einstein. HU undergrad is about professional resume padders.

LeonDurham says

Lots of Asians get into Harvard. If one doesn't make the cut, it's their own fault.

BTW, I'd taken classes at Harvard as a special student ... all A's.

Seriously, aside from gaining admissions, there's nothing special about the school. This is why they need to mix the rich/connected crowd, athletes, musicians, along with those who'll make the academic numbers (papers, books, GPA/standardized scores) to make themselves look like a premier school.

Asians & whites, who're not from well off/connected families, are at a disadvantage here.

LeonDurham says

Lots of Asians get into Harvard. If one doesn't make the cut, it's their own fault.

Especially if their GPA's and standardized test scores are much better than for individuals accepted to Harvard. They forgot to change their DNA and/or have the wrong mix of chromosomes, which is surely their fault.

dr6B says

LeonDurham says

Lots of Asians get into Harvard. If one doesn't make the cut, it's their own fault.

Especially if their GPA's and standardized test scores are much better than for individuals accepted to Harvard. They forgot to change their DNA and/or have the wrong mix of chromosomes, which is surely their fault.

No, their mistake was not to get a Mailboxes Etc address in Mexico (or some other South American, but not Brazil, as the Portuguese language doesn't count), and then, check off the Latino box on the application.

In fact, Asians living south of the border have done it for years w/o duress.

dr6B says

LeonDurham says

Lots of Asians get into Harvard. If one doesn't make the cut, it's their own fault.

Especially if their GPA's and standardized test scores are much better than for individuals accepted to Harvard. They forgot to change their DNA and/or have the wrong mix of chromosomes, which is surely their fault.

BTW, just to be fair minded, non-connected whites are also at a disadvantage.

I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of poor whites, who can pass law school, unlike Al Gore Jr.

And unlike him, many could also get B+'s to A's at Harvard undergrad, and thus, guarantee themselves a seat at places like Georgetown Law.

Rin says

BTW, just to be fair minded, non-connected whites are also at a disadvantage.

definitely, esp white fucking males

dr6B says

Rin says

BTW, just to be fair minded, non-connected whites are also at a disadvantage.

definitely, esp white fucking males

Well ... if they can pass law school's first year, unlike Harvard's great alum, Al Gore Jr ... then yes.

Quigley says

Do we have laws or don’t we?

Thank you. If we have laws, we should enforce them.

And if we have borders, we should defend them.

Otherwise, we have nothing at all, and "we" are not even we.

CovfefeButDeadly says

Reminder that this is what you are dealing with. One of the 3 MAJOR MSM networks, and this was their coverage:

All the coverage from CNN to ABC was pretty much the same as that.

Clinton's ground game, indeed! "Florida is her power center" hahahahahah

Sure, I should be in prison. And I should pay about 10,000 speeding tickets for all the times I exceeded the limit on the highway.

Even under Federal law, possession of small amounts of marijuana is a misdemeanor, though in theory the judge could put you in jail for up to a year. Up to him. Fortunately, that law looks likely to change pretty soon, given the trends.

So to be consistent, I should have said we should enforce our laws or change them. We should not have laws that are not enforced. That erodes respect for the law.

Common law is whatever is commonly enforced. There are thousands of laws on the books that are not enforced with any rigor.

Thus, if anti-discrimination laws are not enforced, then they are not common laws and may be easily ignored.
Which does happen in many cases, often in ways that disadvantage minorities. Just ask the police if they racially profile and they’ll say no way! But they do and everyone knows it. If you act, dress, drive, and look like a criminal, you’re going to get stopped ten times as much.

So do we have laws or not? Depends on if we enforce them. This Harvard case is about enforcing laws already on the books.