• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:148] Affirmative Action promotes systemic racial discrimination.

TurtleDude said:
yet I proved there is no specific definition.
Click to expand...
no, you didn't. I proved there is a legal definition.
TurtleDude said:
I cited what those of us who handled EEOC federal cases knew. Many different actions can be called affirmative action.
Click to expand...
You have never handled any such case. AA is a legal term. What you keep claiming, is by definition not AA. That was true the first time you alleged it, and will continue being true no matter how hard you stomp your feet.
 
TurtleDude said:
yet the definition noted preferring minorities for jobs or admissions.
Click to expand...
is by definition not AA, nor have you proven this is actually happening.
TurtleDude said:
That by definition discriminates based on race or ethnic status
Click to expand...
and if you ever get around to proving it is actually happening, you can take it to court. It remains by definition, not AA.
 
rahl said:
no, you didn't. I proved there is a legal definition.

You have never handled any such case. AA is a legal term. What you keep claiming, is by definition not AA. That was true the first time you alleged it, and will continue being true no matter how hard you stomp your feet.
Click to expand...
can you cite the law or the court cases which actually support your claim that the definition you gave us is the only accepted one? You claim anything that can be attacked as harming whites or Asians is not "affirmative action" and yet hundreds of cases say otherwise.
 
rahl said:
no, you didn't. I proved there is a legal definition.

You have never handled any such case. AA is a legal term. What you keep claiming, is by definition not AA. That was true the first time you alleged it, and will continue being true no matter how hard you stomp your feet.
Click to expand...
YOu have admitted you are not an attorney in the past. So tell me, what is the controlling supreme court case or the federal statute which states that affirmative action never includes what Harvard Law did (at the time I was applying to various law schools) and gave blacks 130 points on the 800 point LSAT test results and added .5 to their GPA
 
The opening post was attacking actions where blacks-with lower test scores, and/or grades-are given preferences over whites and Asians with higher scores and grades. Most everyone considers such a preference system to be one of several forms of "affirmative action". Arguing that this activity is not "affirmative action" appears to be a rather obvious attempt to avoid having to defend what is obviously racial discrimination no matter what the system that causes it is called
 
TurtleDude said:
can you cite the law or the court cases which actually support your claim that the definition you gave us is the only accepted one? You claim anything that can be attacked as harming whites or Asians is not "affirmative action" and yet hundreds of cases say otherwise.
Click to expand...
I have done this already, and so has Agent J
 
TurtleDude said:
YOu have admitted you are not an attorney in the past.
Click to expand...
ok?
TurtleDude said:
So tell me, what is the controlling supreme court case or the federal statute which states that affirmative action never includes what Harvard Law did (at the time I was applying to various law schools) and gave blacks 130 points on the 800 point LSAT test results and added .5 to their GPA
Click to expand...
already gave you the legal definition of AA.
 
RealityChecker said:

Affirmative Action promotes systemic racial discrimination.​

Affirmative Action (AA) began with an presidential executive order by JFK back in 1961
- Over time AA has evolved into laws and regulations that support systemic racism.
- Like so many progressive left programs AA actually creates systemic racial discrimination and undermines individual liberty.
- No doubt the intent of AA was to reduce race based discrimination, but the effect of AA is now the only form of government promoted and condoned race-based discrimination.
- AA is immoral and conflicts with the civil rights laws which were intended to outlaw and discourage racial discrimination.
- AA seriously undermine merit and demands people be judged less on objective qualifications and more based on race, ethnicity, and gender indenity.
Click to expand...

Well heres the OP with thread title added to it and dashes added by the individual claims

14 days later and 800+ posts we are still waiting for ANYBODY to provide one single shred of evidence that makes the thread title or any of these 5 claims facts . . . anybody?

Wonder why it's taking so long and can't be done?
 
AGENT J said:
Well heres the OP with thread title added to it and dashes added by the individual claims

14 days later and 800+ posts we are still waiting for ANYBODY to provide one single shred of evidence that makes the thread title or any of these 5 claims facts . . . anybody?

Wonder why it's taking so long and can't be done?
Click to expand...
it is undeniable that programs that are universally called affirmative action, have resulted in blacks with lower objective qualifications, gaining admission advantages over higher qualified whites and Asians
 
rahl said:
they were not paid

no you didn't. you provided information about paying citizens who were actually harmed (as in they were alive and directly harmed) by the govn't. That isn't reparations.
Click to expand...
That is reparations :).
rep·a·ra·tion
the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged.
 
TurtleDude said:
it is undeniable that programs that are universally called affirmative action, have resulted in blacks with lower objective qualifications, gaining admission advantages over higher qualified whites and Asians
Click to expand...
Hey look another meaningless post about your feelings and retarded strawmen that still prove ZERO things in the OP to be facts . . . LMAO

Sticking to what I actually said, please let us know when you can prove the thread title or any one of those 5 claims in the op to be facts, thanks!
 
rahl said:
don't need one. It's in crystal clear english in the 14th amendment. Reparations are by definition unconstitutional. It's why we have never and will never have them.

strawman

proven false

I've schooled you in every exchange, lol.
Click to expand...
Show which court case has declared reparations to be unconstitutional, then you have a case. You schooled me? You said your money originated from your labor, nope all bills originated from the treasury.
 
calamity said:
I’m not one who voted for a con man promising to make America great again—-you know, after the Affirmative Action black guy screwed it up, of course. And then y’all were some bummed out the guy lost, your team tried to start a revolution.
Click to expand...
You assume I voted for Trump. Didn't do it in 2016 or 2020. Didn't vote for the Democrat either. I don't want him to run in 2024. I want the GOP to take over the House and the Senate next year. Simple goals for a Conservative who doesn't want Progressives to take over the country.
 
rahl said:
don't need one. It's in crystal clear english in the 14th amendment. Reparations are by definition unconstitutional. It's why we have never and will never have them.

strawman

proven false

I've schooled you in every exchange, lol.
Click to expand...
Never say never ;)
 
TurtleDude said:

this is the seminal academic discussion of affirmative action. Most of the criticism is based on Sander's claim that black enrollment in law schools would go up if affirmative action was eliminated-few challenged his following claim
Click to expand...
if you are alleging discrimination based on race, that is by definition not AA.
 
rahl said:
already called you out on this strawman.

yep

nope. my money originated from my labor. they were printed at the treasury.
Click to expand...
You dont appear to understand how constitutional law works lol. The courts have the final say.

Originated means where they first came from dingus. They originated from the treasury and the federal reserve. I did not ask you how you earned it.

if the government didnt spend it into the economy, you would not have money.
 
From the Sander article

In fact, the evidence within the law school world shows conclusively that a very large majority of American law schools not only engage in affirmative action, but engage in the types of segregated admissions/racial boosting that I illustrated in Part II. I will also argue that the dynamics of affirmative action in law schools make these practices largely unavoidable. In other words, few American law schools feel that they have any meaningful choice but to engage in covert practices that, if made explicit, would probably not survive judicial scrutiny.

...... Consider the University of Michigan Law School, where, as we saw in Part II, the school in 1995 admitted most whites with academic indices over 830, and almost no whites with academic indices below 750; for blacks, presumptive acceptance required an index score of 690 and few were admitted with scores below 610
 
bomberfox said:
Show which court case has declared reparations to be unconstitutional, then you have a case. You schooled me? You said your money originated from your labor, nope all bills originated from the treasury.
Click to expand...
Reparations to African-Americans who have zero connection to slavery which ended over 150 years makes no sense at all. It's an affront to those African-Americans who do not wish to be dragged into who should get how much money for being descendants of slaves.
However, I believe the Biden Administration will find ways to give our taxpayer dollars to those black communities (without any accountability) who scream the loudest for government aid. We will most likely see that in the form of grants to black communities that will supplement police protection with community services hoping to keep cops away from domestic abuse cases.
 
rahl said:
why? reparations can never happen as they are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
They certainly can and have happened. Reparations include those paid to the japanese its the ****in definition.
 
Yeesh you would think i wouldnt have to explain the definition of reparations to somebody lol.
Nor where money comes from and how it enters the economy.
 
Last edited:
bomberfox said:
You dont appear to understand how constitutional law works lol. The courts have the final say.
Click to expand...
they don't actually. The people do. But regardless, reparations would be a direct violation of the 14th amendment, and therefore unconstitutional. Don't care that you don't like that.
bomberfox said:
Originated means where they first came from dingus.
Click to expand...
personal insults only show the weakness of your argument.
bomberfox said:
They originated from the treasury and the federal reserve. I did not ask you how you earned it.
Click to expand...
you asked where MY money came from. I correctly pointed out from my labor.
bomberfox said:
if the government didnt spend it into the economy, you would not have money.
Click to expand...
I would have something of equal value in exchange for my labor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom