Support NeoGAF

[Boom Boom Pow]

Where the term comes from is an EO that stated the government and its agencies
In the simplest terms its any action that seeks to better represent underrepresented groups. Its the awareness of injustice and equality and attempts to rectify it there are a lot of ways to do this.
Here is a ACLU positon paper on it.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/FilesPDFs/affirmative_action99.pdf

yeah...sorry dude but I'm gonna totally disagree here. Even if you argue the people getting in are still qualified, what AA basically does then is leave people more qualified not getting a position.

AA works in theory if you have enough resources and open spots for every qualified person. But, since you don't, then as a manager, I want to hire the best qualified, regardless of anything.

Think of this way, do you think African Americans would be arguing for AA if it was a reverse? if they are the dominant driving force of power and positions in the country? of course not. They'll call it unfair discrimination.

all AA does is punish people for sins they did not commit. you can argue til Kingdom come how all AA does is rectify the advantage that white people has, but all it really does (and empirically proven through university admission), is hurt a different minority, mainly Asian Americans. Same thing with jobs.

I don't really agree with income level either, because then it'll just hurt the middle class, because those with money will already have their own connections to the job/university position

 

[Hitokage]

Why do you trade one hypothetical for another? It's demonstrable that managers do NOT "always hire the best people".

 

[Zona]

Which point are you referring to that keeps getting refuted in the Bechdel test thread?

In that specific thread the idea that it's a critique of the quality of an individual movie as opposed to a way to demonstrate the systematic bias of the industry as a whole. Amongst other things.

 

[The Librarian]

I've seen several columns about this, and they just keep coming: the inevitable battle of Warren v. Clinton.

Of course, if Warren were to challenge Clinton, I'd pick Warren.

All of which is to say, if Hillary Clinton runs and retains her ties to Wall Street, Warren will be more likely to join the race, not less. Warren is shrewd enough to understand that the future of the Democratic Party is at stake in 2016. At 64, she knows that if Hillary wins and populates yet another administration with heirs to Robert Rubin, it will be at least eight years before there’s another chance to reclaim the party. “She has an immense—I can’t put it in words—a sense of destiny,” says a former aide. “If Hillary or the man on the moon is not representing her stuff, and her people don’t have a seat at table, she’ll do what she can to make sure it’s represented.”

Warren refused to tell me what would happen if the likely 2016 nominee is wrong on her issues. “You’ve asked me about the politics. All I can do is take you back to the principle part of this,” she said. “I know what I am in Washington to do: I’m here to fight for hardworking families.”4

These words may be soothingly diplomatic, but her methods usually are not—and that should be terrifying for Hillary. An opponent who doesn’t heed political incentives is like a militant who doesn’t fear death. “Yeah, Hillary is running. And she’ll probably win,” says the former aide. “But Elizabeth doesn’t care about winning. She doesn’t care whose turn it is.”
​

 

[Gotchaye]

There are a few possible motivations for AA, and its effects are going to depend on the degree to which there is a racial preference and on the degree to which both current and historical injustice are otherwise influencing outcomes.

Some AA is motivated by ongoing discrimination in hiring. Suppose managers are systematically not hiring the best qualified applicants, even by their own lights, but are discriminating in favor of one group or another. Then you might want AA in order to make it so that the best qualified applicants are in fact hired. Edit: Some of this discrimination might be in some sense rational, insofar as it is probably the case that there are statistical differences between whites and blacks even controlling for the sorts of facts about them that are generally available to managers. But in lots of areas we don't think that the fact that you belong to a group that happens to be statistically worse off than another group in some particular way justifies discrimination against you. We're just now implementing a health care law that bans one of the most rational sorts of discrimination there is - insurance companies discriminating on the basis of preexisting conditions - because it's not fair to do that. Race shouldn't matter in these sorts of decisions, even if in some cases there's actually information value in knowing an applicant's race (and I certainly don't think this is what's going on in most cases of racial discrimination).

Some AA is motivated by patterns of present-day injustice directed against members of a particular group. If members of some group are consistently denied particular sorts of opportunities, it can make sense to give them more opportunities later on than they might otherwise get. This is second-best, all else equal, to not allowing the initial injustice, but it might be much easier to do. This is again entirely consistent with a meritocracy, because it's reasonable to think that someone who had to struggle to come up with a resume competitive with the resume of someone else who did not have to struggle as much will actually outperform the second person going forward, if given the same opportunities. There's also a fairness justification here, because maybe society owes something to the person who had to face more hardship already.

Some AA is motivated by a desire for representativeness. Diversity is in-itself valuable for many institutions. Being a member of a particular group may qualify as something like a bona fide occupational qualification, in some cases. Political institutions are obvious candidates for this sort of AA, as are many public-facing institutions like police forces. Decision-making bodies, like corporate boards, who might make better decisions if informed by more empathy towards particular groups might benefit too. Diversity might be valuable in groups like student bodies for its educational role. A minority group being well-represented in some position may also help to encourage children belonging to that group, and this is another benefit. These are all reasons why being a member of a particular group is itself a qualification, for an expanded notion of "qualification" that allows that the people making hiring decisions may not really know who the best person for the job is, in part because they have a too-narrow conception of what the job is.

That's just off the top of my head. There are probably other plausible motivations.

Now, obviously for many methods of applying AA you're going to be able to give so much weight to some trait that you end up with overall less qualified candidates. Probably that's a bad thing, but it's not an inherent problem with AA. I know I've heard a bunch about mismatch with AA in law schools, but I haven't looked into this enough to know if there's anything there. But law schools are probably going to be an extreme case by virtue of being near the end of a very long chain over the course of which minorities are systematically excluded.

My understanding is that pure income-based AA is problematic because poor blacks and poor whites, for example, do not do equally well. You need to talk about race to explain differences in outcomes, and so it makes sense for solutions to be sensitive to race.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

If you support AA for job applications, you are really just pushing worse candidates into the job a lot of the time. Having affirmative action discriminate based on race doesn't even make sense either, it should be based on income levels to be focused mostly on education as that is what really holds a lot of minorities back.

Poor whites still have it better than poor minorities. Look at the infamous study with 'black names' same qualifications not getting looked at. I'm not arguing for worse candidates, nobody is trying to say hire women or minorities just for the hell of it. They still need to be qualified and able to do the job.

yeah...sorry dude but I'm gonna totally disagree here. Even if you argue the people getting in are still qualified, what AA basically does then is leave people more qualified not getting a position.

AA doesn't do this. Hiring and school admission isn't only based on school scores there are a lot of intangible factors, why exclude race? Again this isn't quotas. Its the use of race in a holistic way. And you think this doesn't happen? That hiring and school admission is on the merit process exclusively? And if the difference is that great then yeah you hire the best.

Think of this way, do you think African Americans would be arguing for AA if it was a reverse? if they are the dominant driving force of power and positions in the country? of course not. They'll call it unfair discrimination.

I don't understand what your trying to say here if Minorities were in the position of white males they'd argue against AA?

all AA does is punish people for sins they did not commit. you can argue til Kingdom come how all AA does is rectify the advantage that white people has, but all it really does (and empirically proven through university admission), is hurt a different minority, mainly Asian Americans. Same thing with jobs.

It doesn't punish people. It helps underrepresented and discriminated against populations. And it does help Asian Americans a lot of the time, even in education Its not a quota its:

any measure, beyond simple termination of
a discriminatory practice, that permits the
consideration of race, national origin, sex,
or disability, along with other criteria, and
which is adopted toprovide opportunities to
a class of qualified individuals who have
either historically or actually been denied
those opportunities and/or to prevent the
recurrence of discrimination in the future.

Edit: These are forms of AA used in the government: Can anybody really argue with 1 and 2?

1)Selection among equally qualified candidates. The mildest form of affirmative action selection occurs when a female or minority candidate is chosen from a pool of equally qualified applicants (e.g., students with identical college entrance scores). Survey research suggests that three-quarters of the public does not see this type of affirmative action as discriminatory (Roper Center for Public Opinion, 1995d).

2)Selection among comparable candidates. A somewhat stronger form occurs when female or minority candidates are roughly comparable to other candidates (e.g., their college entrance scores are lower, but not by a significant amount). The logic here is similar to the logic of selecting among equally qualified candidates; all that is needed is an understanding that, for example, predictions based on an SAT score of 620 are virtually indistinguishable from predictions based on an SAT score of 630.

 

[cooljeanius]

The constant invocation of Asians strikes me as a kind of concern trolling, its done by people who have no real desire to 'fix' injustice, just stop AA. Like Gun Control advocates mentioning the gun control is anti-black.

I've heard actual Asians make that argument. I don't think the two are really analogous.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I've heard actual Asians make that argument. I don't think the two are really analogous.

I edited that out because I didn't want to give the impression of saying Boom Boom Pow was doing that.

But yeah I don't think its the same thing. There is a lot of different type of discrimination in the country and I don't think any blanket solution is good. My only argument is that in a lot of cases race and present and historical discrimination should be considered as a factor. That's it

In college for example there is a clear justification for a diverse student population.

Edit: http://www.naasurvey.com/resources/Home/NAAS12-sep25-issues.pdf

 

[Aaron Strife]

I've seen several columns about this, and they just keep coming: the inevitable battle of Warren v. Clinton.

Of course, if Warren were to challenge Clinton, I'd pick Warren.

All of which is to say, if Hillary Clinton runs and retains her ties to Wall Street, Warren will be more likely to join the race, not less. Warren is shrewd enough to understand that the future of the Democratic Party is at stake in 2016. At 64, she knows that if Hillary wins and populates yet another administration with heirs to Robert Rubin, it will be at least eight years before there’s another chance to reclaim the party. “She has an immense—I can’t put it in words—a sense of destiny,” says a former aide. “If Hillary or the man on the moon is not representing her stuff, and her people don’t have a seat at table, she’ll do what she can to make sure it’s represented.”

Warren refused to tell me what would happen if the likely 2016 nominee is wrong on her issues. “You’ve asked me about the politics. All I can do is take you back to the principle part of this,” she said. “I know what I am in Washington to do: I’m here to fight for hardworking families.”4

These words may be soothingly diplomatic, but her methods usually are not—and that should be terrifying for Hillary. An opponent who doesn’t heed political incentives is like a militant who doesn’t fear death. “Yeah, Hillary is running. And she’ll probably win,” says the former aide. “But Elizabeth doesn’t care about winning. She doesn’t care whose turn it is.”
​

Warren told Hillary to run for president

I doubt she's running

 

[zero shift]

Same thing with jobs.

No. White felons are more likely to get hired than blacks with the same qualifications and no criminal record.

 

[WayneMorse]

I've seen several columns about this, and they just keep coming: the inevitable battle of Warren v. Clinton.

Of course, if Warren were to challenge Clinton, I'd pick Warren.

All of which is to say, if Hillary Clinton runs and retains her ties to Wall Street, Warren will be more likely to join the race, not less. Warren is shrewd enough to understand that the future of the Democratic Party is at stake in 2016. At 64, she knows that if Hillary wins and populates yet another administration with heirs to Robert Rubin, it will be at least eight years before there’s another chance to reclaim the party. “She has an immense—I can’t put it in words—a sense of destiny,” says a former aide. “If Hillary or the man on the moon is not representing her stuff, and her people don’t have a seat at table, she’ll do what she can to make sure it’s represented.”

Warren refused to tell me what would happen if the likely 2016 nominee is wrong on her issues. “You’ve asked me about the politics. All I can do is take you back to the principle part of this,” she said. “I know what I am in Washington to do: I’m here to fight for hardworking families.”4

These words may be soothingly diplomatic, but her methods usually are not—and that should be terrifying for Hillary. An opponent who doesn’t heed political incentives is like a militant who doesn’t fear death. “Yeah, Hillary is running. And she’ll probably win,” says the former aide. “But Elizabeth doesn’t care about winning. She doesn’t care whose turn it is.”
​

Warren co-signed a letter with a bunch of other women Senators urging Hillary to run, yeah there's no way she's gonna challenge Hillary.

 

[WayneMorse]

So Scott Walker has a book coming and shockingly enough leaves out some pretty big details that happened during his term, like this one:



http://wisconsingazette.com/opinion...-bid-to-position-himself-as-presidential.html

Am...am I reading that bolded quote incorrectly? Cause that sounds pretty hilarious.

Speaking of Walker, what are his chances of getting re-elected next year? When people talk about Walker in 2016 they act as if his second term as governor is a given like Christie's was. I know the recall failure was demoralizing but is it really that hopeless for Wisconsin Democrats? I mean, he's been an utter failure as a governor in every way.

 

[The Librarian]

Warren told Hillary to run for president

I doubt she's running

Yeah, I know that. I was noting the many articles that appear about the subject and if such a thing would happen.

 

[zero shift]

I mean, he's been an utter failure as a governor in every way.

So has Christie. Has that stopped him?

 

[Diablos]

Warren told Hillary to run for president

I doubt she's running

Let her run. She's not an Obama circa 2008 type of candidate. She will not have that kind of appeal outside of the Northeast and even then I'm pretty sure Hillary will dominate the map pretty much all over the country with rare exception.

I like Warren, she makes for a remarkable Senator, but we need someone who can win in 2016.

 

[zargle]

Warren co-signed a letter with a bunch of other women Senators urging Hillary to run, yeah there's no way she's gonna challenge Hillary.

Yeah, I know that. I was noting the many articles that appear about the subject and if such a thing would happen.

I could see her doing an early run and dropping out early to try and inject certain issues into the race or, as the article Dax posted talks about, to help ensure that someone who better represents her positions has a voice at the table. But I do not see her doing a full scale run.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Can't say I support affirmative action, at least based on race, when it comes to college admissions; although to be fair, the idea of it being on of many different non-merit factors that goes into student selection isn't problematic, as long as it isn't heavily weighed. I support affirmative action based on income. AA in the workplace/professionally is also a hard sell to me, personally.

 

[Diablos]

I cannot wait until Christie crashes and burns. It's going to be amazing.

He's just so gosh darn likable though. If Christie can bullshit his way through the primaries, he's probably smart and savvy enough to make a rapid shift to the center or some other... viewpoint and not throw up on himself every step of the way (i.e. Romney).

 

[WayneMorse]

It was only a few months ago that people were anointing Marco Rubio as the nominee in waiting and look at how that turned out. Now no one even considers him a 2016 heavyweight anymore.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Can't say I support affirmative action, at least based on race, when it comes to college admissions; although to be fair, the idea of it being on of many different non-merit factors that goes into student selection isn't problematic, as long as it isn't heavily weighed. I support affirmative action based on income. AA in the workplace/professionally is also a hard sell to me, personally.

That's how its used today. And workplace AA is only in the government or voluntary

 

[Aaron Strife]

He's just so gosh darn likable though.

"Likable" is never a word I would use to describe Chris Christie.

Yeah, an angry heavyset white man shouting at teachers to shut up. He's going to look great on the campaign trail.

 

[B-Dubs]

He's just so gosh darn likable though. If Christie can bullshit his way through the primaries, he's probably smart and savvy enough to make a rapid shift to the center or some other... viewpoint and not throw up on himself every step of the way (i.e. Romney).

Christie has a similar problem to Romney though. He won't say anything stupid like Romney did, but he can and will be mean and nasty to some poor guy's grandmother during or after a town hall. He can't help himself. The only reason it hasn't sunk him yet is that it's Jersey and he hasn't faced a decent opponent.

 

[Mario]

It was only a few months ago that people were anointing Marco Rubio as the nominee in waiting and look at how that turned out. Now no one even considers him a 2016 heavyweight anymore.

Not to mention this last go around, the lead candidate in the primaries was literally changing every month.

I think it is far too early to make any kind of decent predictions around who the lineup of candidates is going to be, much less who is the strong frontrunner or likely nominee.

Any high profile Republican who wants to make it to the Presidential race is going to have to spend the next 3 years walking a tightrope avoiding doing or saying anything stupid that will put off either moderates or their Tea Party. That's going to be a Herculean feat, especially for Republicans who generally can't keep their mouths shut.

Keep your head down and don't do much of anything and you might be in with a shot.

After all, "generic Republican" has always polled the strongest, probably because generic Republican doesn't have the chance to offend or disappoint anyone.

 

[Diablos]

"Likable" is never a word I would use to describe Chris Christie.

Yeah, an angry heavyset white man shouting at teachers to shut up. He's going to look great on the campaign trail.

Eh yeah. Good point.

Hillary isn't looking so young these days. It's gonna be the fat white dude vs. the old woman.

 

[WayneMorse]

It's also important to note that we don't quite know what skeletons lie in Christie's closet, but from what I've been reading it seems like there would be some really dirty stuff in there.

That's why I think it's important for Wisconsin Dems to go all out on Walker, cause if he runs in 2016 I think he can be a real threat due to his lowkey presence and outsider status like Carter was in 1976, and the full dark money weight of the Koch Brothers behind him.

 

[Hitokage]

"Likable" is never a word I would use to describe Chris Christie.

Yeah, an angry heavyset white man shouting at teachers to shut up. He's going to look great on the campaign trail.

My introduction to Chris Christie was a This American Life episode where he was a prosecutor saying he didn't give a shit about innocent people getting locked up. My first impression has not been significantly challenged since.

 

[Armoured Priest]

Speaking of Walker, what are his chances of getting re-elected next year? When people talk about Walker in 2016 they act as if his second term as governor is a given like Christie's was. I know the recall failure was demoralizing but is it really that hopeless for Wisconsin Democrats? I mean, he's been an utter failure as a governor in every way.

if they can find someone half way decent, he's gone.

Tom Barrett was not a good candidate. There's also the fact that a number of people who voted for him in the election didn't think he was that good...they just didn't feel he did anything bad enough to warrant a recall.

 

[speculawyer]

It was only a few months ago that people were anointing Marco Rubio as the nominee in waiting and look at how that turned out. Now no one even considers him a 2016 heavyweight anymore.

Rubio supported an immigration bill and that meant the hard-right had to kill his GOP career.

The GOP is really getting wedged. The demographic changes are making their policies outside of the mainstream views. However, their base refuses to moderate on their policies. So they are shrinking into a southern and Mountain state regional party.

 

[B-Dubs]

My introduction to Chris Christie was a This American Life episode where he was a prosecutor saying he didn't give a shit about innocent people getting locked up. My first impression has not been significantly challenged since.

Wait, they have a recording of him saying that?!

 

[RustyNails]

Eh yeah. Good point.

Hillary isn't looking so young these days. It's gonna be the fat white dude vs. the old woman.

At least the senior vote is a lock.

 

[Boom Boom Pow]

Poor whites still have it better than poor minorities. Look at the infamous study with 'black names' same qualifications not getting looked at. I'm not arguing for worse candidates, nobody is trying to say hire women or minorities just for the hell of it. They still need to be qualified and able to do the job.

AA doesn't do this. Hiring and school admission isn't only based on school scores there are a lot of intangible factors, why exclude race? Again this isn't quotas. Its the use of race in a holistic way. And you think this doesn't happen? That hiring and school admission is on the merit process exclusively? And if the difference is that great then yeah you hire the best.
I don't understand what your trying to say here if Minorities were in the position of white males they'd argue against AA?
It doesn't punish people. It helps underrepresented and discriminated against populations. And it does help Asian Americans a lot of the time, even in education Its not a quota its:


Edit: These are forms of AA used in the government: Can anybody really argue with 1 and 2?

AA does not help Asian. Let's used prop 209 and California's UC campus. While blacks and latinos dropped in attendance, Asians exploded. Funny enough, whites also fell when AA is taken out. Even better, another minority, women, increased without AA.

Is this not empirical proof then that AA, at least in the Unversity setting, holds back Asian Americans from better schools in higher education all for the purpose of "diversity" in a school?

http://www.browndailyherald.com/2008/02/13/without-affirmative-action-asian-admission-rates-rise/

general trends emerged to confirm that Asian-American students are disadvantaged in a race-conscious admissions system.

hint. i'm asian.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

AA does not help Asian. Let's used prop 209 and California's UC campus. While blacks and latinos dropped in attendance, Asians exploded. Funny enough, whites also fell when AA is taken out. Even better, another minority, women, increased without AA.

Is this not empirical proof then that AA, at least in the Unversity setting, holds back Asian Americans from better schools in higher education all for the purpose of "diversity" in a school?

http://www.browndailyherald.com/2008/02/13/without-affirmative-action-asian-admission-rates-rise/

hint. i'm asian.

It doesn't help in the UC system because they're is a large Asian population and their highly educated, It can help in other areas though where they don't have structural advantages.

And it doesn't hold back anyone it doesn't kick someone out for a minority to get that spot (unless there are quotas which are illegal), it gives another factor for the school to look at. And yes, diversity is a great thing to strive for at school.

Don't look AA as Asians vs. other minority groups. Those spots were never 'asian' to begin with, its just the determinants now favor asians over other groups. The fallacy comes from the fact that you think those 'well qualified students' which are almost always exclusively based test scores which blacks and Hispanics are at a disadvantage for. are losing out are always better candidates.

 

[Ecotic]

The quality of the opposition candidate really only matters if the fundamentals of the race don't favor the incumbent party: GDP growth rate, unemployment, Presidential approval rating, duration of incumbent party holding the White House ("time for a change" phenomenon), etc.

I don't really worry about Christie so much as I worry if the business cycle is going to turn soft just in time for November '16. Or maybe Obama slides in popularity just enough to be at a consistent 40% approval rating by then.

 

[Hitokage]

Wait, they have a recording of him saying that?!

Not in such blatant terms, but...

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/292/transcript

Petra Bartosiewicz: So the only person who bought Lakhani's defense caved in the jury room. It took just over seven hours. The jury found him guilty. In the end, the government spent almost two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars trapping a man who didn't seem to have any connection to any real terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. Chris Christie says it's his main regret about the case, that Lakhani didn't lead them to any other suspects. We asked Christie if maybe the problem wasn't that Lakhani refused to talk but that he simply didn't know anything. I guess it's possible, Christie said. Even so, he's happy with the outcome because it proves that law enforcement is meeting its new mandate.

Christopher Christie: What Lakhani is emblematic of in the war on terrorism is, in the biggest way, the new American approach to law enforcement in the area of terrorism. We're going to try to catch people before they act.

[...]

Sarah Koenig: You're saying that he's a person who facilitates terrorist activity. But actually, he's a person who potentially might have facilitated. I mean, the fact is there actually wasn't a terrorist group, there wasn't a missile, he didn't do this deal. So is the question-- I guess you see him as someone who really would have been approached by a terrorist. I'm not sure where the evidence is for that. How do you make that argument, really? It seems like it's all speculation to say, he might have turned into a bad guy.

Christopher Christie: No, I disagree with you. He was a bad guy. Once you find someone who is that, basically, amoral, then whether or not he was actually able to do it, that debate-- which I have one opinion of and the defense has another opinion of and maybe you have a slightly different opinion-- who cares? I mean, at the end, who cares? I don't have a crystal ball and I don't know, if this had fallen apart, what Hemant Lakhani would have done next. So the question is, confronted with those realities as American law enforcement, what we do? Do we ignore it because we say, maybe he could, maybe he couldn't? Let's see, let's see if he does.

I'm just not willing to take that chance, and I think most Americans would say the same thing. Hemant Lakhani was willing to sell missiles to a person he believed to be a terrorist, who expressly said he was going to use them to kill innocent people. And so there are good people and bad people. Bad people do bad things. Bad people have to be punished. These are simple truths. Bad people must be punished.

And so, he's not just a guy with four beers in him at the corner bar who says, if I could get a missile and I'd sell it to whoever if I could make a buck, that's not who we're talking about here. So let's not minimize him either. He's not Osama bin Laden, but let's not make him Elmer Fudd either. All I know is that he's not the kind of guy I want coming through Newark Airport. He's not the kind of guy I want in this country. That's the kind of guy I want in federal prison, and so that's where he's going to go. And at the end, that's the success of the Lakhani case.

Christie saying how proud he is to commit entrapment.

 

[Aaron Strife]

"It takes balls to execute an innocent person" - GOP primary voter circa 2012 explaining his support for Rick Perry

Just reminded me of that.

 

[Boom Boom Pow]

It doesn't help in the UC system because they're is a large Asian population and their highly educated, It can help in other areas though where they don't have structural advantages.

And it doesn't hold back anyone it doesn't kick someone out for a minority to get that spot (unless there are quotas which are illegal), it gives another factor for the school to look at. And yes, diversity is a great thing to strive for at school.

Don't look AA as Asians vs. other minority groups. Those spots were never 'asian' to begin with its just the determinats now favor asians over other groups. The fallacy comes from the fact that you think those 'well qualified students' which are almost always exclusively based test scores are losing out are always better candidates.

nothing "favors" asians. it favored high grades, high test scores, extracurricular activities, leadership, etc etc. of course, i'm all for a more transparent admission process, but to use race, as say, "oh, he's white, so he gets 0.1 point, he's asian he gets 0.2, he's hispanic, he gets 0.3 point, and he's black so he gets 0.5 points" is pretty disingenuous.

Here's a good read for you. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/e...e-university-of-california-berkeley.html?_r=0

They consider much more than just grades and standardize testing.

 

[ISOM]

When's the last time a fat guy got elected as president? I really don't think christie with his abrasive personality and being as big as he is, will be electable.

 

[789shadow]

When's the last time a fat guy got elected as president? I really don't think christie with his abrasive personality and being as big as he is, will be electable.

Taft, right?

 

[smokeandmirrors]

When's the last time a fat guy got elected as president? I really don't think christie with his abrasive personality and being as big as he is, will be electable.

Taft?

 

[ISOM]

Yup taft. I just don't think unless he loses a lot of weight that he will appeal to people on national television. He doesn't have a soft personality either, some bad mixes.

 

[FyreWulff]

When's the last time a fat guy got elected as president? I really don't think christie with his abrasive personality and being as big as he is, will be electable.

Clinton

 

[NYCmetsfan]

nothing "favors" asians. it favored high grades, high test scores, extracurricular activities, leadership, etc etc. of course, i'm all for a more transparent admission process, but to use race, as say, "oh, he's white, so he gets 0.1 point, he's asian he gets 0.2, he's hispanic, he gets 0.3 point, and he's black so he gets 0.5 points" is pretty disingenuous.

Here's a good read for you. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/e...e-university-of-california-berkeley.html?_r=0

They consider much more than just grades and standardize testing.

Those factors favor Asians, they excel at them over peer groups. That's not a bad thing! You act like I'm trying to belittle Asians when I'm doing no such thing.

And your numbers examples shows your not listening to what I'm saying. I'm not arguing for that. I'm saying it should be a factor which the author of your article even admits to, its not numerically quantifiable and I am against quotas because I think they do more damage and run contrary to equality

Should I value consistent excellence or better results at the end of a personal struggle? I applied both, depending on race. An underrepresented minority could be the phoenix, I decided.

 

[Diablos]

Clinton was chubby at times but not full blown obese.

Given the amount of obese people in the US Christie's weight may not prove to be a problem. Unless he's having heart attacks on the campaign trail or something.

 

[RustyNails]

Yup taft. I just don't think unless he loses a lot of weight that he will appeal to people on national television. He doesn't have a soft personality either, some bad mixes.

What you consider abrasive personality many Republicans (and independents?) probably think is "Straight Shootin". Remember the straight talk express? Kinda like that.

His downfall will be his anger though. He has exploded many times. But since it was Jersey no one outside of the state really cared. Some of his hits:

Target: Paul Sarlo

Christie comment: "You've got to be one arrogant SOB to be telling the people of New Jersey he'll decide when you've been good enough to get some of your own money back."

Target: Loretta Weinberg

Christie comment: "I mean, can you guys please take the bat out on her for once?"

Target: Frank Lautenberg

Christie comment: "We're not going to listen to partisan hacks like Frank Lautenberg." And, "It was embarrassing and his conduct yesterday was an embarrassment to the state and an embarrassment to the United States Senate."

Target: Reed Gusciora

Christie comment: "You have numbnuts like Reed Gusciora, who put out a statement comparing me to George Wallace and Lester Maddox."

Target: William Brown, law student/former Navy SEAL

Issue: Christie's proposal to merge Rutgers University-Camden and Rowan University.

Christie comment: "Do you want to hear the answer or no? Do you want to hear the...do you want to hear the answer or don't ya? Because I'm not gonna... I've heard you. OK. Next question...Go ahead, yes sir. Let me tell you something. After you graduate from law school, you conduct yourself like that in a courtroom your rear end's gonna get thrown in jail idiot. Damn man, I'm governor, would you just shut up a second?"

Looks like he will have the asshole vote on a lock.

 

[Diablos]

Clinton was a shitstain too, yknow.

 

[RustyNails]

Clinton was a shitstain too, yknow.

I didn't know about that...I knew about cumstain though.

 

[Aaron]

Taft, right?

Taft was also anointed by Teddy as his successor. It was basically impossible for him to lose.

 

[rocketknight]

Opponents Of California Transgender Student Rights Law Get Signatures To Repeal

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS/AP) — Opponents of a new California law that gives transgender students certain rights said Sunday that they had collected enough signatures for an initiative that would repeal the law.

A coalition of conservative groups called Privacy for all Students submitted 620,000 signatures to get the initiative on the November 2014 ballot, said Frank Schubert, the political strategist handling the signature gathering effort.

To qualify, at least 505,000 valid signatures must be submitted. To verify the signatures, each of California’s 58 counties will first check that the overall count is correct, then conduct a random sampling to make sure they are legitimate. After that, it is likely the state would order a full review.

If, after all of the reviews, the group has the requisite number of valid signatures, the initiative would qualify for the ballot.

Sigh. This is extremely disheartening. I don't expect this to go well for the good guys after Prop 8, since uninformed morons hate trans people even more than they hate gay people.

 

[kingkitty]

Taft got stuck in a white house tub right? Fuckin' Taft.

 

[The Librarian]

What you consider abrasive personality many Republicans (and independents?) probably think is "Straight Shootin". Remember the straight talk express? Kinda like that.

His downfall will be his anger though. He has exploded many times. But since it was Jersey no one outside of the state really cared. Some of his hits:


Looks like he will have the asshole vote on a lock.

There's also this. The Next Bill Clinton, everyone.

Opponents Of California Transgender Student Rights Law Get Signatures To Repeal


Sigh. This is extremely disheartening. I don't expect this to go well for the good guys after Prop 8, since uninformed morons hate trans people even more than they hate gay people.

That is disappointing. They probably got the signatures with advertisements like this explaining how people are so scared about a transgender girl using the girls' bathroom at a Colorado high school. These high school girls are "victims" and the transgender girl in question is a "confused little boy." I also can't help but find it fascinating – even though I know why this happens – that whenever these issues pop up, 99% of the time the issue highlighted is a transgender girl using the girls' bathroom – with no mention or effort to bring out the opposite instance, as in a transgender boy using the boys' bathroom. I find that disheartening too.