Bernie & Hillary Pander For Votes Via Racism

[Cephus]

Are there no Latinos who are well-and-truly qualified for the positions?

Probably. But if you're only hiring people who are well and truly qualified, why mention Latinos at all? Just hire the best people without regard for their race.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Just what is the seemingly monolithic "white community" you so freely speak of? White people represent the dominant population on our welfare rolls all the way up to some of the richest people on the planet. Same with the other races, welfare all the way up to the Oprahs, Michael Jordan's, the Obamas... My kids will never have the advantages of those of the higher level economic stations.

What is truly necessary is to banish liberal ideas from education, make education solid and sound again without all the warm fuzzies, students getting ahead based on merit and hard work... Keep it free up until, say, 9th grade, all basic and necessary learning has been done by that grade, reading, writing and arithmetic...then have students compete for academic and trade school positions proving they actually want it, are willing to work and achieve it.

Then from there on out all positions are determined by those hiring. Smart companies/businesses will want the top people, no matter skin color, a diverse staff that brings them access to more markets/more moola.

Truly free enterprise.


We have done so, we have a black guy at the very pinnacle, we could very well choose a Cuban immigrant's son...or a our first female, or our first billionaire, but not based on that, based on if they is the best person for the job. That is how it should be from here on out... we are hurting too bad to do otherwise.

Concerning everything you said above, the ones that have made it are truly the rare exceptions to the rule. If you understood what they faced - and how much LOWER the bar is actually set for us whites - you'd know this already.

 

[Orly?]

how much LOWER the bar is actually set for us whites

Fallacy..

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Probably. But if you're only hiring people who are well and truly qualified, why mention Latinos at all? Just hire the best people without regard for their race.

Problem with that is the fact - fact! - that race plays a part in every interaction...including in the interview process. Even the people who consciously strive their hardest to ignore race are nonetheless influenced by the race of the people they interact with. And this, sir, is a big reason why good cops who honestly try to do their level best to serve and protect are still much more likely, when seeing blacks and whites doing the same thing, to arrest the blacks.

And studies have shown time and time again that when people read resumes that do not refer to race in any way, they will choose properly...but when the same people personally meet the applicants for an interview, whites are significantly more likely to get the job than an equally-qualified minority. Same thing goes with men and women - a recent study showed that those in the IT field, when shown two sets of coding, said one was superior to the other...but when shown the same two sets and told that one set was by men and the other by women, well, suddenly the other set of coding was superior.

Was this deliberate on the parts of the people studied? No. It has much more to do with human tendencies...and we as humans have a statistically-significant tendency, when shown two different people, to choose those from the more socioeconomically-favored race or ethnicity. And note the choice of words in that last sentence - even black supervisors were more likely to choose whites.

So...yeah, since whites are the socioeconomically-favored race in America (and in much of the world), when all other factors are equal, we are significantly more likely to be chosen. Bearing this in mind, that race is ALWAYS a factor regardless of how hard we try to ignore it, do you still think that it's wrong to give minorities a leg up, seeing as how we whites have had - and still have - it much easier than they do?

 

[RetiredUSN]

LOL The real racial pandering is being done by Trump and in a hateful and dividing way too. Is that more to you taste?

Hillary has played it to the hilt. I have seen the videos.

 

[lenski7]

Problem with that is the fact - fact! - that race plays a part in every interaction...including in the interview process. Even the people who consciously strive their hardest to ignore race are nonetheless influenced by the race of the people they interact with. And this, sir, is a big reason why good cops who honestly try to do their level best to serve and protect are still much more likely, when seeing blacks and whites doing the same thing, to arrest the blacks.

And studies have shown time and time again that when people read resumes that do not refer to race in any way, they will choose properly...but when the same people personally meet the applicants for an interview, whites are significantly more likely to get the job than an equally-qualified minority. Same thing goes with men and women - a recent study showed that those in the IT field, when shown two sets of coding, said one was superior to the other...but when shown the same two sets and told that one set was by men and the other by women, well, suddenly the other set of coding was superior.

Was this deliberate on the parts of the people studied? No. It has much more to do with human tendencies...and we as humans have a statistically-significant tendency, when shown two different people, to choose those from the more socioeconomically-favored race or ethnicity. And note the choice of words in that last sentence - even black supervisors were more likely to choose whites.

So...yeah, since whites are the socioeconomically-favored race in America (and in much of the world), when all other factors are equal, we are significantly more likely to be chosen. Bearing this in mind, that race is ALWAYS a factor regardless of how hard we try to ignore it, do you still think that it's wrong to give minorities a leg up, seeing as how we whites have had - and still have - it much easier than they do?

So I see you seek equality of condition, not equality of rights.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Concerning everything you said above, the ones that have made it are truly the rare exceptions to the rule. If you understood what they faced - and how much LOWER the bar is actually set for us whites - you'd know this already.

Good lord, dude, whatever are you even talking about?

Hell, I worked in the school system for 17 years, I was close to these kids, in cosmopolitan Central Florida it was like having UN summits for classes every day. Kids from Latin America, from Haiti and the Dominican Republic, South Korean kids [many very decent golfers], Mexican migrant kids, kids from Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador, from England and Germany, kids just so happy to be here, kids from the rich rich [ many of these kids drove far better cars at 17 than I did] Tiger Wood's neighborhood of every color and stripe as well as the poor of Pine Hills [dubbed Crime Hills] in Orlando, also of every color and stripe... all in the same school.

I saw and worked through their hardships, many are just good kids, like we were growing up... and if they worked hard they achieved. Many many did very well. It was a good school with, at various times, caring tough administrators. If you have teachers that care and hold to standards, are rigorous but joyful in their approach, who enjoy teaching and getting kids to learn, there is one of the secrets to success in education. That and getting the parents on board. If the parents are not behind their child's education, its the rare child that overcomes that. I had many many fantastic students over the years, again in all shapes colors and sizes.

You hold kids back telling them they need need or deserve more than the kid sitting right next to them in class. My class was not unique in setting a high bar for all, taking the kids as they come and picking up their learning from there. Give kids the chance and they will excel. Give them a chip to carry on their shoulder and they will carry it with them the rest of their lives, unhappy about what they think they have been robbed.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

Liberals rely on racism. They NEED racism to pit one group against the other, and then come rushing in like the white knight they pretend to be.

Just listen to one of their primaries. It's always "black people" this, and "latino" people that. It's never "American citizens," because liberals can't write laws that affect ALL people equally. ...that would be racist.

 

[poweRob]

The projection is strong in this thread. It's okay my conservative brethren. You are not victims here. No matter how much you all pretend to be.

 

[Ontologuy]

That's always the anti-Affirmative-Action argument: it's racist to include others based on their race or ethnicity. And that would be absolutely true - IF we were living in a world where all races and ethnicities had the same level of opportunity, and faced the same level of prejudice in their efforts to succeed.

But the various races and ethncities do NOT have the same level of opportunity, and they do NOT face the same level of prejudice - anyone who claims otherwise is either incredibly naive or has less-than-savory motives in making that claim.

And what happens when there's no efforts to bring in minorities to leadership positions? You get leaders who do not understand the minority community, who do not understand the challenges and pressures that they face that are quite different from what those in the white community normally face. This is how we wind up with majority-black schools getting significantly less funding than majority white schools, and blacks with similar (or even less) criminal records than whites being given longer prison sentences than whites for the same offense.

It boils down to this: in any given nation, the ethnicity or race that is socioeconomically dominant, if it wants to improve social order and diminish unrest and violence, MUST make allowances for increased opportunity for the members of less-influential races or ethnicities...for failure to do so will only result in deep resentment and hatred and will result not only in violence, but will create a drag on that nation's economy as a whole.

You err in summarily presenting that all members of the "dominant race" are .. dominating.

In America, the great majority of individual American citizens in the "dominant race", as you refer to it, are not dominating and far from it.

They're struggling, many mightily.

So .. when the struggling great majority of your "dominant race" see that there is any kind of discrimination based on race, as Clinton and Sanders are presenting in the OP for example, and they're not a part of that race, and thus they'll never even get a shot at applying for whatever they would otherwise qualify for and want to apply for, well, they're gonna be pissed, and ..

.. Enter Donald Trump. :shock:

It works both ways. Race should never be a criteria, ever.

There is no "make up" necessary; none that is ethically valid.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Good lord, dude, whatever are you even talking about?

Hell, I worked in the school system for 17 years, I was close to these kids, in cosmopolitan Central Florida it was like having UN summits for classes every day. Kids from Latin America, from Haiti and the Dominican Republic, South Korean kids [many very decent golfers], Mexican migrant kids, kids from Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador, from England and Germany, kids just so happy to be here, kids from the rich rich [ many of these kids drove far better cars at 17 than I did] Tiger Wood's neighborhood of every color and stripe as well as the poor of Pine Hills [dubbed Crime Hills] in Orlando, also of every color and stripe... all in the same school.

I saw and worked through their hardships, many are just good kids, like we were growing up... and if they worked hard they achieved. Many many did very well. It was a good school with, at various times, caring tough administrators. If you have teachers that care and hold to standards, are rigorous but joyful in their approach, who enjoy teaching and getting kids to learn, there is one of the secrets to success in education. That and getting the parents on board. If the parents are not behind their child's education, its the rare child that overcomes that. I had many many fantastic students over the years, again in all shapes colors and sizes.

You hold kids back telling them they need need or deserve more than the kid sitting right next to them in class. My class was not unique in setting a high bar for all, taking the kids as they come and picking up their learning from there. Give kids the chance and they will excel. Give them a chip to carry on their shoulder and they will carry it with them the rest of their lives, unhappy about what they think they have been robbed.

If you worked in such an environment and yet you STILL did not grasp how much better white kids generally have it, how much lower the bar is set for us...then you are the very, very rare exception to the rule that "by teaching, you learn"...'cause you didn't learn - or more likely, refused to learn - what was right in front of your face.

But don't feel bad - I've seen teachers in the past who did recognize how much easier that white kids have it...but the difference is, they thought that's the way it SHOULD be. I hope you aren't one of them.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

You err in summarily presenting that all members of the "dominant race" are .. dominating.

In America, the great majority of individual American citizens in the "dominant race", as you refer to it, are not dominating and far from it.

They're struggling, many mightily.

So .. when the struggling great majority of your "dominant race" see that there is any kind of discrimination based on race, as Clinton and Sanders are presenting in the OP for example, and they're not a part of that race, and thus they'll never even get a shot at applying for whatever they would otherwise qualify for and want to apply for, well, they're gonna be pissed, and ..

.. Enter Donald Trump. :shock:

It works both ways. Race should never be a criteria, ever.

There is no "make up" necessary; none that is ethically valid.

Problem with your post is...you're looking at the individual and ignoring the whole. Your post is a great example of "he can't see the forest for the trees", meaning that you're paying so much attention to the individual trees right in front of your face, that you can't step back and take a look at the forest as a whole, and never realize that the forest as a whole might be quite different from the individual trees close enough for you to look at.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

So I see you seek equality of condition, not equality of rights.

I seek freedom FROM discrimination...and you cannot have equality of rights without freedom FROM discrimination. Why? Because if people are allowed the right to discriminate, then they are allowed to take away the rights of others. And yeah, this has been the human condition throughout the overwhelming majority of human history.

So that's your choice - freedom TO discriminate, or freedom FROM discrimination - you can choose only one or the other...you can't have both.

Of course, in any given society, those who belong to the dominant race or ethnicity - since they would be much less likely to have truly experienced being on the wrong end of discrimination to any significant extent - would be much more likely to choose the freedom TO discriminate....

 

[Eric7216]

Racial is not the same thing as racist. Words seem to be confusing you today.

I would like you to explain the difference. Racist is defined as "1.a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another:"
And racial is defined as "•on the grounds of or connected with difference in race:" or "of or relating to race".

I guess that a racist has a positive or negative feeling about people based on their race while a racial person simply does something different because of race but how can a public policy based on race, i.e. racial, not be racist? Clearly there is no reason for any public policy unless it has some benefit and if the benefit goes to a group simply on racial grounds it is racist.

(Besides, all talk of race is pseudo science and there is no consensus as to what the races are or how do you tell who is what race.) To define the races would be racial and racist.

 

[Redress]

I would like you to explain the difference. Racist is defined as "1.a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another:"
And racial is defined as "•on the grounds of or connected with difference in race:" or "of or relating to race".

I guess that a racist has a positive or negative feeling about people based on their race while a racial person simply does something different because of race but how can a public policy based on race, i.e. racial, not be racist? Clearly there is no reason for any public policy unless it has some benefit and if the benefit goes to a group simply on racial grounds it is racist.

(Besides, all talk of race is pseudo science and there is no consensus as to what the races are or how do you tell who is what race.) To define the races would be racial and racist.

Racist implies a feeling of inferiority or inferiority based on race. Racial means something to do with race. If I say that African-Americans have darker skin, that is racial(dealing with race), but not racist(there is no value judgement associated with dark skin).

I object to the overuse of the term racist because it short circuits arguments. Instead of talking about whether something is good or bad, we spend our time arguing over whether it is racist. Further, racism should be a heavy word. It should have heft. It should have impact. Right now all it means is we are talking about an issue related to race. And lastly note that neither side has monopoly on overuse of the term. Both sides use it, and instead of actually being that heavy, impactful term, it is just yet another thing people use to score points against the other side.

 

[lenski7]

I seek freedom FROM discrimination...and you cannot have equality of rights without freedom FROM discrimination. Why? Because if people are allowed the right to discriminate, then they are allowed to take away the rights of others. And yeah, this has been the human condition throughout the overwhelming majority of human history.

So that's your choice - freedom TO discriminate, or freedom FROM discrimination - you can choose only one or the other...you can't have both.

Of course, in any given society, those who belong to the dominant race or ethnicity - since they would be much less likely to have truly experienced being on the wrong end of discrimination to any significant extent - would be much more likely to choose the freedom TO discriminate....

The people reserve the right to discriminate, however the government does not, it is not in their power, nor has it ever been.

Enjoy the 10th amendment

Also the 9th which does not allow the government to restrict rights, but rather also enforces other rights the individual has.

I seek property rights, I do not have to marry a homosexual couple in my church. Men aren't allowed to use the Women's room. I see the ability to discriminate as yet another right, I am not taking away any rights to you, public facilities are non-discriminatory, you can express your beliefs, you can live how you want so as long as it does not directly effect me.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now I find discrimination in majority idiotic, especially in the case of business where all money is good money. Now I'm not saying discrimination when I don't like the group being discriminated against. If you own a business you can choose not to serve ANY race, people of ANY beliefs, and people of ANY stature in society. Since the business is selling THEIR product it is their's, and their's alone to market, and sell to whomever the wish.

We have discrimination against Asians going to colleges, I don't see how if Asians who are a significant majority, and suffered massive discrimination in this country, especially when you look at WWII they were prisoners in their own country for no fault other than the fact they were Asian. In Princeton they are handicapped what is equivalent of -50 points on an SAT test while African Americans are given 230 bonus points. This is disgusting, are they favored simply because of the color of their skin, wasn't that supposed to not matter! We will only have true equality when we knock down as a SOCIETY, not as a government, it is the society's job to end discrimination, it is our duty to end ignorance, not the government's.

People can also restrict your rights when it comes to their private property, they can demand you not walk on their pathway in their yard, and you must comply or leave. I don't think it is the government's place, I think it is the people's place ultimately to end this childish behavior, but in some cases it can be valid, profiling people entering your store, is a perfectly valid way to conduct surveillance if you know people of that nature entering your story are more likely to commit crime in the area.

Now we may say the Constitution is outdated, and needs change, which is exactly what the Article V process can be used for, we haven't found the need for it as of recent.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The people reserve the right to discriminate, however the government does not, it is not in their power, nor has it ever been.

Enjoy the 10th amendment

I guess you never heard of "slavery" or "Jim Crow laws" (which we had until 1964).

Also the 9th which does not allow the government to restrict rights, but rather also enforces other rights the individual has.

I seek property rights, I do not have to marry a homosexual couple in my church. Men aren't allowed to use the Women's room. I see the ability to discriminate as yet another right, I am not taking away any rights to you, public facilities are non-discriminatory, you can express your beliefs, you can live how you want so as long as it does not directly effect me.

No church is forced to marry LGBT couples - who said that any religion should be forced to do anything? That said, regarding your other rants above, in your PRIVATE life, or in your PRIVATE club, you can discriminate to your heart's content...but if you do that which results in PUBLIC discrimination, that crosses the legal line...and you yourself gave the rational justification for the anti-discrimination laws in the bolded sentence above...because the moment that we allow for anyone in the PUBLIC to be discriminated against, it most certainly affects you directly, for it opens the door for discrimination against you.

Now I find discrimination in majority idiotic, especially in the case of business where all money is good money. Now I'm not saying discrimination when I don't like the group being discriminated against. If you own a business you can choose not to serve ANY race, people of ANY beliefs, and people of ANY stature in society. Since the business is selling THEIR product it is their's, and their's alone to market, and sell to whomever the wish.

We have discrimination against Asians going to colleges, I don't see how if Asians who are a significant majority, and suffered massive discrimination in this country, especially when you look at WWII they were prisoners in their own country for no fault other than the fact they were Asian. In Princeton they are handicapped what is equivalent of -50 points on an SAT test while African Americans are given 230 bonus points. This is disgusting, are they favored simply because of the color of their skin, wasn't that supposed to not matter! We will only have true equality when we knock down as a SOCIETY, not as a government, it is the society's job to end discrimination, it is our duty to end ignorance, not the government's.

People can also restrict your rights when it comes to their private property, they can demand you not walk on their pathway in their yard, and you must comply or leave. I don't think it is the government's place, I think it is the people's place ultimately to end this childish behavior, but in some cases it can be valid, profiling people entering your store, is a perfectly valid way to conduct surveillance if you know people of that nature entering your story are more likely to commit crime in the area.

Now we may say the Constitution is outdated, and needs change, which is exactly what the Article V process can be used for, we haven't found the need for it as of recent.

Yet now you go off the rails again with your bolded section above. You might not know this, but I've LIVED in such a town: Shaw, MS. There was one doctor in town, and there were two doors to his office, one on either side of the receptionist's desk. Above one door, chiseled inch-deep in marble, was "WHITE", and above the other door, also chiseled inch-deep in marble, was "COLORED". This was 1984 - twenty years AFTER the Civil Rights Act - and the doctor got away with it by painting the signs a solid kelly-green color...but paint doesn't cover inch-deep chiseling so well. And the people abided by the signs...and our town remained divided, with no trust between the blacks and the whites.

That is what you would bring back. Oh, you can claim all you want to that it wouldn't work out this way...but I've seen it with my own eyes - I've LIVED it. So what you need to ask yourself is, in order for you to have the "freedom" that you want, are you willing to allow the great injustices, the racial segregation that we had before the Civil Rights Act was passed? Are you willing to accept the mass violence that would surely occur? Is your precious freedom TO discriminate really worth the vast injustices that WOULD occur when people no longer have a right to freedom FROM discrimination?

 

[Texmex]

This is a very good thing. Hispanics have been under-represented for decades. It's about time for these promises, go democrat!