Democrat's Continued Assault On Whites

According to the one telling the story, she got into that college. Hardly discriminated against.

 

Why can't you answer a simple yes or no question?

....

Oh...I know why.

 

Because it's not pertinent to the topic. Stay on topic.

 

What generalization? You aren't making sense. Either spell it out (explain your position in detail) or buzz off.

 

Geebus, so touchy! Apologies ... sarcasm doesn't translate well in a written medium.

Would you be so kind as to clarify your previous reply?

 

Oh no, its on topic. You just don't like the questions because they disprove your claim. I'd bet a million dollars that if an actual case came up where a black person was put in the back of the line because of their skin color you'd be hollering about discrimination. Wouldn't matter to you in the slightest that the person was "delayed". You know it. I know it. EVERYONE reading the conversation knows it. You made a foolish argument that was easily destroyed.

 

Please quote such "spouting" or stand corrected.

If you want to know my position on an issue, you can just ask and I will tell you. Making false statements only erodes credibility. I neither like nor dislike any politician. The faces and the letters by their name mean nothing to me. Its all about results. Politicians gain power from creating division. As long as people look at one another as (Insert sweeping generalization here) they can continue to spend our money like thieves with stolen credit cards.

You are quick to paint others with a broad stroke.
Isn't that what racists do?

 

Ok. You said "White males have been running the civilized world for thousands of years, and look where it's gotten us."

This is likely an attempt to criticize leadership, but only refers to skin color and genitalia. Painting people with a broad stroke is what racists do.

My position is that politicians need you to view others as the enemy to strengthen your support for them.

 

Nothing to say?

 

You dodged:

Please quote such "spouting" or stand corrected.

If you want to know my position on an issue, you can just ask and I will tell you. Making false statements only erodes credibility. I neither like nor dislike any politician. The faces and the letters by their name mean nothing to me. Its all about results. Politicians gain power from creating division. As long as people look at one another as (Insert sweeping generalization here) they can continue to spend our money like thieves with stolen credit cards.

You are quick to paint others with a broad stroke.
Isn't that what racists do?

 

I'm not painting anything. History is what it is, I'm just pointing out a fact.

I don't view my fellow Americans as enemies. I only support politicians who convince me that they support the same things that I favor, or convince me that they are less of a walking disaster than their opponent, less likely to screw things up.

 

You did not include any history/facts in your post. Only skin color and genitalia.

Sadly, I agree with your "less likely to screw things up" comment and can't remember the last time I voted for a candidate. I am usually voting against one!

 

It's not that easy.

Universities point out that having students from all walks of life is important to being able to provide a quality education. Their work on diversity includes looking for students from across the US and abroad. They look for students who have different cultural backgrounds, different levels of means. Their work on diversity is not just focused on the race problem in the USA. Admissions officers know the high schools of the USA. They know what good grades mean in one high school vs. other high schools. Selecting a new student body each year is something most take very seriously, though there certainly are schools for which entrance is a pure numbers game.

Beyond that, college education is 4 years, not employment or other long lasting situation. And, not being "hired" by some school is not some final analysis. If a student wants to get into a college, then they can do the work to make themselves a better candidate. They can go to some other college, a 2 year school, or maybe they can get accepted as a winter candidate, since many wash out in the first term, and many schools accept candidates to "backfill", which means that lesser qualifications may be required.

There is a real advantage to spreading opportunity around. It's an important approach to the problem of generational poverty. Plus, successful businesses are more often started by college graduates, so it's a method of distributing that kind of opportunity in the areas from which students have come. They can end up being models of what it even means to go to college.

Look at our taxes. We can not afford generational poverty.

 

Your attempt at stupid projections that are completely false only shows just how well you can articulate a point. Which is to say, NOT AT ALL.

If all you can do is make up stories and false claims, there's no reason for you to even post.

 

See, here's the thing... The Officers who made the decision did not know I was white. So, I got there because I worked my ass off for years. The fact I was white had nothing to do with it.

 

That point in time was LONG gone when I got admitted, and that happened 30 years ago. Also, see above.

 

I was never aware of one, real or imagined. Foreign Cadets could basically get away with anything, though, including an honor violation. But that was because one years back (I don't know when) got kicked out for one reason or another, and his country executed him for it. Foreign Cadets were strange creatures, it was almost like an exchange program, although I don't think we sent anyone over to their Academies. They were relatively rare, too, I only remember interacting with 2. But the Corps is over 4,000 people.

I have no idea what it takes to get a Presidential nom, but I'm guessing that's a pretty much guaranteed admit. Kids of Medal of Honor winners is the one example I know of. Seems like a reasonable reward for such a distinction, but they still have to hack it. Mine was "only" from a House member, and I never even met him. I bet he didn't know I was white, either.

 

Good to hear.

Foreign cadets? I never thought about noncitizens attending West Point.

Why would a foreigner be interested in attending West Point?

It would be nice to think he might not have cared.

Thanks for the reply.

 

That's fine. There are several states in which the Democratic Party and the Republican party have different times for their primaries or caucuses. In 2020 Presidential primary season for instance, Nevada had a Democratic caucus on February 22, 2020 while the GOP in Nevada canceled theirs in 2020 because at the time that Nevada was to have their caucuses, Trump had already or was expected to win the nomination.

Each party can do what it can do on dates of when to hold its presidential primary or caucus through the state legislature or through its governing body, depending on the state.

 

I know what the Democratic party is arguing.

If you look at the Presidential Primary Season before the major party big conventions, it is a marathon, not a sprint to the nomination. In the past, after the first or second super Tuesday primaries, each party has a pretty good idea who the nominee is, except for 2016 Democratic Primary with the Democratic party having Super delegates. I think what the Democratic Party is attempting to do is to shorten the marathon race to a few, like three or four, Super Tuesdays, so that candidates don't have to be on the road for 9 months straight.

In retrospect, compared to other democratic countries, we have a very long, if not one of the longest, election seasons when it comes to President/Prime Minister. If we really want to save our democracy and to get candidates from both parties, then have 4 super Tuesdays that last about two months. Or in other words, a Super Tuesday about once every two weeks, beginning in May and ending in July. Just a thought.

 

So what you are arguing is that if Tim Scott, a Republican, runs for President, not even the GOP will elect him because he is black, he lives in the city, and the GOP has very, very few black people in its party. But you missed the elephant in the room. Why are blacks voting democratic instead of republican? Does it have to do with policies between the two parties? The GOP does not give a damn about minorities and view them, generally, as objects of possession, so to speak. They don't listen to the concerns of blacks, instead, they try to use blacks to get more money into their pockets, like the so-called choice for schools issues. We all know that is simply giving money to suburbian white parents who don't want their kids to be in a suburbian school that now has more and more black or other minority kids in them who are outperforming their kids academically. And to most blacks, it is the "lesser of two evils" so to speak. They know the Democratic party pretty much does the same thing, but at least they listen and try to work things out. But not in the GOP, it's their way or the highway.

 

The problem with your argument is that race is A FACTOR in college admissions. Depending on the college or university, their highest criteria may include legacy programs, the number of applications being sent versus the number of "seats" available for the freshman class. Right now, it is harder to get into Texas A&M university than it is to get into Harvard or Yale. Texas A&M has created programs where potential students can go to Blinn College for two years before transferring into Texas A&M. In the admission process, they have allocated a certain number of seats for their priorities: Legacy, Top 10% in their graduating class, Rhodes scholars, international students and the various affiliated exchange programs with other universities abroad, Athletics, and so forth. The race factor is at the bottom of the pile in this list with most, universities other than HBCU and Native American universities. Gender too is on the bottom of the list unless that university was an all-female university like what Texas Women's University used to be for its undergraduate programs. and may be used as the determining factor of the student getting in or not if they are at the bottom of the barrel in the selection process. yes, Asians have been stereotyped as being great students, studious students, bright students, overachievers in academics, and so forth.

As for the teacher putting a black kid in front of the line and a white kid in the back, that would depend on the context here. What if the black kid was name John Adams and the white kid was named John Whitiker and the class had to form a line based on the letter of their last name? surely, it is highly probable that the black kid would be first and the white kid would be last. Another would be a "teaching moment" if the teacher was teaching about the Jim Crow laws and how it affected a certain group of minorities, namely blacks. The teacher is teaching a point of how such laws affected certain groups so that students can understand. If the student didn't understand the lesson, should that be on the student and not the teacher or the school?

 

Angry White Guys in the U.S. constantly whining and playing the victim card is pathetic and tedious, but it has its humorous side.

In the U.S., White males dominate politics, law, finance, science, entertainment, technology, and the corporate realm, and the cloying self-pity causes one to chortle.

 

Although, it this particular case, they wanted to change Iowa from first to something else just due to race. Being the "inclusive" party, Iowa was too white for them. So, their decision was made solely due to race. That's not just my opinion, that's what they actually said.

 

It is not race as the reason why. Race is just another buzz word being thrown around by conservative media to see which dung will stick to which wall, if at all.