Aseahawkfan wrote:Affirmative action is way too hard to manage in the modern day. They should go more by income level if they want to help the less fortunate.
I gave up on race a long time ago, at least it is used in America. I'm mixed "race" as it is called with my mother being of Mexican ancestry and my father European mutt, but I never saw my families as different. They never really acted differently. Both were blue collar people. About the biggest difference is one group could speak Spanish and ate different types of foods commonly, but both enjoyed each other's food and company and never treated each other like they were a different "race."
And as far definition by skin color, dark-skinned Indians don't need affirmative action, neither do Nigerians, Ethiopians, or many other Africans who will just outwork anyone else to get things they want like becoming a doctor or lawyer. Asians are doing better than people of European descent. If anything, people of European descent aka white people will need affirmative action against Asians and other immigrants at some point because they're getting their asses kicked in school by these folks. That's a major reason why you see the whining about immigrants now. Not only are low end jobs getting taken by immigrants, but so are higher end jobs because white folk are getting out-competed in jobs, education, and the like. Their lazy ass, digitally addicted children who want to spend more time smoking dope than going to school aren't going to beat immigrants from highly conservative nations who see more value in working hard in America than Americans themselves. I worked with a bunch of Afghan immigrants who from the moment they got here they started pursuing school, working a job, doing Uber and whatever they could to make money, buying houses, starting businesses, and busting their asses because the only thing holding them back in their own nations were the lack of opportunities. Opportunity is everywhere in America for those willing to work to make the most of them. Only Americans, usually liberal Democrat voting Americans, try to paint this place as a nation where only the wealthy prosper, but immigrants willing to put the work in make them look like complete idiots as they earn money, buy homes, and build wealth. I think there is far less support for affirmative action across the nation than before due to the huge mix of immigrants. You can't even argue white people dominate higher education any more given how many immigrant students are dominating. Fact is poor kids need more help than rich kids, that includes poor American kids of European descent as well African descent.
As far as the student loan program, I was fine with it either way. It's mostly irrelevant. Just wish the courts would kill some of these business welfare programs as well, but seems the Democrats rarely bother to do much to stop business welfare even why they're selling themselves as the party of the working man. Republicans don't stand against business welfare because the local news networks don't sell it as welfare and Republican voters never spend much time learning about business welfare and how much money is given to the wealthy as tax breaks, loans that are forgiven and forgotten, so they never get up in arms about it because the media arm of the Republicans love business welfare as it helps the bigwigs in both parties.
I don't enjoy the hypocrisy and so called unfairness called out by voters like Riverdog who rarely speak out about the unfairness and unnecessary level of business welfare in this nation that goes to people far wealthier than a few doctors getting 10,000 in student loan forgiveness. Be nice if the Republican voter was a little more mad about the millions and billions being given to people who are far, far, far wealthier and need it less like the COVID loan forgiveness which was handed out in a much larger amount to business owners make more than the doctors and lawyers that might get the piddly 10k loan forgiveness. But that isn't being splashed on Fox News or every conservatives favorite media sites, so the Republican voters don't even think about it.
Same as the anti-stock trading bill in Congress will get swept under the carpet because neither party wants that garbage. Democrats like to make money too. They just like to pretend they're nicer wanting to give back a little to the poor bastards, even though it's more like giving it back to ourselves as we almost always end up paying for it in the end whether higher prices, more taxes, or the like.
Yeah. I hear Biden whining. Some of the court decisions went his way, some didn't. The Democrats have to pull out the conservative card even though impeaching the court and making the move is going to set up future Democratic appointed judges for the same and they know it. Don't start the war with the Republicans or they'll come back with it, just like you see them trying to impeach Joe Biden now. Tit for tat.
There you go, Riverdog. Toss in some discussion. It's kind of a boring time in sports and politics right now. Sort of that lull period.
Mariners suck this year. Seahawks are in the slow part of the NFL downtime. One more month to training camp. No election craziness probably until about March of next year? Maybe Feb? Next year should be real interesting.
NorthHawk wrote:I saw an interview yesterday with a person from a university who aren't using the affirmative action scale but rather they developed a disadvantaged person scale. What it means is just because your parents have money or graduated from a specific school, the children don't get extra consideration. As well it takes into account the applicants struggles to qualify and they get extra credit for it. For instance a kid who is from a poor background and had to stay home to help with their siblings but still managed to get good grades and be near the top of the class would be considered over someone who had wealthy parents and any tutors they required and ended up with similar or slightly better grades. It's like they valued overcoming the applicants challenges more than their test grades with race not being a consideration. I'm sure there is more to it, but it sounds like a direction that might be valuable in evening out educational opportunities for all.
RiverDog wrote:Boy, things have been dead in here for awhile. Perhaps a new topic will liven things up.
SCOTUS has been busy recently, and I can't say that I'm disappointed. To the contrary, most of their decisions I've agreed with.
First of all, they ended Affirmative Action. I didn't like it when they came up with it back in the 70's. They weren't ending discrimination, they were displacing it from one group to another. But if there was a justification for it nearly 50 years ago, it has long since disappeared. The race demographics in this country has changed to such a degree that it's almost impossible to tell who a minority is and who isn't. It irritates the hell out of me when people call Patrick Mahomes a black quarterback, completely ignoring the fact that his mom is white. What percentage of blood is necessary for one to be considered a minority? 50%? White/Caucasians currently make up just 59% of the population, and that percentage is declining at a rate of about 1% per year. It's time that we stop segregating ourselves by race, at least in law if not in practice.
RiverDog wrote:The other decision that SCOUS rendered that I liked was them torpedoing Biden's college debt relief plan on the basis that he overstepped his authority. The debt relief program was horribly unfair. Why are we giving doctors and lawyers a $10K-$20K gift? If a truck driver who took out a federal SBA loan of some $150,000 to buy a semi-truck and trailer to start their own trucking company, what makes him/her any different than the college grad that accumulated the same amount in student loans in pursuit of their career? The federal government gives out over $40 billion a year in SBA loans. Why is the focus only on educational loans? Since most college grads vote Democratic, one has to wonder if it's not Biden stroking his constituency.
RiverDog wrote:I got a kick out of Biden's whining about SCOTUS, calling them "not normal". He didn't mind it when they've handed him a number of victories, including issues on immigration, election laws/redistricting, and birth control. But now that they've come down opposite of him on a couple of issues, they're suddenly 'not normal.' Sorry, Joe, but that's what you guys get for trotting out Hillary in 2016.
tarlhawk wrote:I'll go out on a limb (no worries) and identify this 2020 campaign "pledge" was merely a ruse to gather the votes needed to win by the razor thin margin that got him elected. All legislature that affects government revenue has to have its origin in the House (holds the "purse strings") He knows this so pardon my deference when he acts angered of having a phony executive order struck down. All you "sharks" out there can feast on this post which is why I seldom bother posting after a minor attempt months ago. America seems sad now...
MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:That fact that it was penalizing non-Hispanic, non-African American high-performers was reason enough to end it (I agree with Aseahawk fan). I'm a bridge design engineer, and we've hired foreign national engineers from China and India who pursued their Master's degrees here. I can usually give them broad guidance, and they'll take it and run with it. They'll do the necessary unspoken leg work to figure out how to get the end result; not perfect but substantial. Most of the homegrown hires need more hand holding. The bigger issue I see is these "disadvantaged students" are admitted under lesser standards, and, then, they get there and struggle. Getting into college doesn't all of sudden make these students better, more competent students. You can't undo poor preparation in K-12 (for a variety of reasons) simply by sending them to college.
RiverDog wrote:The other decision that SCOUS rendered that I liked was them torpedoing Biden's college debt relief plan on the basis that he overstepped his authority. The debt relief program was horribly unfair. Why are we giving doctors and lawyers a $10K-$20K gift? If a truck driver who took out a federal SBA loan of some $150,000 to buy a semi-truck and trailer to start their own trucking company, what makes him/her any different than the college grad that accumulated the same amount in student loans in pursuit of their career? The federal government gives out over $40 billion a year in SBA loans. Why is the focus only on educational loans? Since most college grads vote Democratic, one has to wonder if it's not Biden stroking his constituency.
MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:It was a stroke to his constituency. Check out the subreddits for loan forgiveness. They've been expecting it these last three years with the loan repayment pause in effect. Many refused to pay down their loans during the pause because they didn't want to be paying off something that might be forgiven. That's a huge concern that these people have so little financial acumen especially since most of debt holders have twice the likely amount they'd be forgiven. Paying down a balance interest free is a huge boon, even if they couldn't pay their full payment. Then I read stories about people who went into more debt because the pause was in effect. More education (for an occupation that wont' pay enough), buying a house, and buying a car were the big ones that made little sense. They all should have embraced the payment pause to get ahead. I would have been more supportive had it been means tested, but instead it was just a blanket handout that could have potentially signaled universities to increase tuition and fees as well as it would only address the current crop of student debt holders. Higher education is a major part of the problem; as long as loan money is easily available and our society keeps pushing that any degree is the way to go, this will not go away.
And business welfare stinks, too.
RiverDog wrote:I got a kick out of Biden's whining about SCOTUS, calling them "not normal". He didn't mind it when they've handed him a number of victories, including issues on immigration, election laws/redistricting, and birth control. But now that they've come down opposite of him on a couple of issues, they're suddenly 'not normal.' Sorry, Joe, but that's what you guys get for trotting out Hillary in 2016.
MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:Agreed, but I would expect it out of either party. Celebrate the victories your constituency supports while blasting them for the ones that don't. Got to stoke the fires to get them to the polls for you.
tarlhawk wrote:I'll go out on a limb (no worries) and identify this 2020 campaign "pledge" was merely a ruse to gather the votes needed to win by the razor thin margin that got him elected. All legislature that affects government revenue has to have its origin in the House (holds the "purse strings") He knows this so pardon my deference when he acts angered of having a phony executive order struck down. All you "sharks" out there can feast on this post which is why I seldom bother posting after a minor attempt months ago. America seems sad now...
MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:Not much of limb to go out. I believe many agree it was a promise meant to gain votes. Your post doesn't chum the waters all that much.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Seems Biden and the left conveniently use the usual lines when the court votes against something they don't like and are conveniently silent when the court votes for something they like. Just political grist.
Biden should know how this works and come up with a better plan or align the Democratic Party less far left so they can win more seats. Right now they are in whacky land like the Republicans, which means we're all voting for whacky land with maybe a few things we want supporting a certain side.
I-5 wrote:Bringing this thread back. I said months ago that the reaction of the SCOTUS reversal of Roe v. Wade is not going to go away anytime soon...in fact, I don't think it's EVER going away until another SCOTUS reaffirms reproductive rights for all. The most recent elections are a string of victories for democrats in right leaning states like Kentucky, Virginia, and Ohio passed an amendment guaranteeing abortion rights despite SCOTUS' ruling. Why would women want to go back 50 years? They don't, even conservative women don't want that. The Middle East is rightfully garnering headlines now, but abortion rights will have a lasting effect on the electorate - it will not be forgotten or accepted as a new reality no matter what SCOTUS decides.
I-5 wrote:Bringing this thread back. I said months ago that the reaction of the SCOTUS reversal of Roe v. Wade is not going to go away anytime soon...in fact, I don't think it's EVER going away until another SCOTUS reaffirms reproductive rights for all. The most recent elections are a string of victories for democrats in right leaning states like Kentucky, Virginia, and Ohio passed an amendment guaranteeing abortion rights despite SCOTUS' ruling. Why would women want to go back 50 years? They don't, even conservative women don't want that. The Middle East is rightfully garnering headlines now, but abortion rights will have a lasting effect on the electorate - it will not be forgotten or accepted as a new reality no matter what SCOTUS decides.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Or the ruling by the SCOTUS that sent this back to the States didn't ban reproductive rights as you and others stated, but went back to the People of each state. They are doing what they're supposed to do: decide for their state how they want to handle it. It is the system working as intended.
Oh NO, not that!“You put very sexy issues like abortion and marijuana on the ballot and a lot of young people come out and vote.”
“Thank goodness that most of the states in this country don’t allow you to put everything on the ballot because pure democracies are not the way to run a country,”
Really, Santorum is just saying the quiet part out loud. Republicans don’t want people—especially young people and historically marginalized communities—to vote. This is why they want to limit voting hours and voting by mail. If everyone voted who is eligible to vote, many more progressive policies would become law and undercut the entire GOP platform.
So please, spare me your whining over some states implementing what you see as extreme measures.
c_hawkbob wrote:You addressing me? I ain't whining pal, I'm laughing!
I-5 wrote:Maybe you can educate me, but why would the democracts need to pass a federal bill guaranteeing permanent abortion rights after Roe v Wade was passed? i geniunely don't know the answer. Can bills be permanent and never repealed?
I-5 wrote:Maybe you can educate me, but why would the democracts need to pass a federal bill guaranteeing permanent abortion rights after Roe v Wade was passed? i geniunely don't know the answer. Can bills be permanent and never repealed?
I-5 wrote:No one is whining. This issue will continue to be a win for any party that support’s and respects reproductive rights for every woman, whether state or federal. We may as well try to take women’s votes away.
I-5 wrote:No one is whining. This issue will continue to be a win for any party that support’s and respects reproductive rights for every woman, whether state or federal. We may as well try to take women’s votes away.
MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:Not in the same league with that comparison. One is a Supreme Court decision/ruling on a state's law's constitutional standing; the other is the 19th Amendment of the Constitution. It would take ratification of a new amendment to repeal the 19th amendment which is a difficult thing to do compared to a Supreme Court decision. It's why River is pointing out the opportunities to pass a federal law on the issue. There were times since Roe that passing a law would have been easier, and, once passed, would have been very difficult to replace.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 91 guests