Donald Trump Backing Off On Immigration??

[Correll]

THat's nice.

So, how do you think your minority majority Democratic Party will treat them?


Or do you want to quibble some more about something to avoid answering the question?

Being that the Democratic Party is:
60% non-Hispanic White
22% non-Hispanic Black
13% Hispanic
12% Other

They will treat them more equitably than Republicans will.

Democrats Racially Diverse; Republicans Mostly White

The New Haven Firefighter case shows that ALL dem appointed Justices support Disparate Impact Theory, a legal interpretation of the law that in effect requires racial quotas and thus anti-white discrimination.

This type of discrimination is not going to DECREASE as political power shifts to the Minority Majority.


What type of future do you envision for a nation with a policy of ever increasing discrimination against it's largest single ethnic group/race?

That pure white race is fast disappearing. It's becoming more black, Hispanic, and Asian because of interracial marriage. In 2013, the rate of interracial marriages reached 12%, twice as great as it was 20 years ago. By mid-century the difference between races in the US will be far less pronounced and by the end of this century, race will not be a reliable physical characteristic. I believe the Democratic party will continue to favor the lower social economic class. It will not be predominately black or any ethnic group.

a. YOu are kidding yourself.

B. I like the way you just dismissed a century of discrimination, oppression and strife. That's a GREAT POLICY for America.

Well, that's the way it's going to end. The races are going to merge. It's happening now and it will continue at an accelerated pace because the barriers between races, nations and cultures are falling. The world is getting smaller everyday.

And by "it" you are discussing the solid 100 years of ever increasing discrimination, oppression and racial strife.

Which you accept and support.


BTW, people can and will obsess over remaining and/or new differences.

Even once Whites are gone, if that time does come, there will not be uniformity. Hel there will still be fresh immigrants from China, India, Indonesia , Africa, Mexico, ect to keep up a nice populations of "pure" races, to differ from and struggle with the mixes.


For any idea of NOT DOING THAT will be forgotten after a century of discrimination against whites.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That pure white race is fast disappearing. It's becoming more black, Hispanic, and Asian because of interracial marriage.

An Italian family moves to Buenos Aires and their children all learn to speak Spanish around 1900.

Their grand children hate living under a Peronista government and move to the US where they are not considered white because they speak Spanish.

That makes no fucking sense to me.

I as of yet have had no liberal assplain to me how speaking Spanish changes your race from white to Hispanic.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Even once Whites are gone, if that time does come, there will not be uniformity. Hel there will still be fresh immigrants from China, India, Indonesia , Africa, Mexico, ect to keep up a nice populations of "pure" races, to differ from and struggle with the mixes.
For any idea of NOT DOING THAT will be forgotten after a century of discrimination against whites.

By Balkanizing this nation, liberals are guaranteeing that it will one day implode like the old Austrian Empire, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia did.

 

[Flopper]

Being that the Democratic Party is:
60% non-Hispanic White
22% non-Hispanic Black
13% Hispanic
12% Other

They will treat them more equitably than Republicans will.

Democrats Racially Diverse; Republicans Mostly White

The New Haven Firefighter case shows that ALL dem appointed Justices support Disparate Impact Theory, a legal interpretation of the law that in effect requires racial quotas and thus anti-white discrimination.

This type of discrimination is not going to DECREASE as political power shifts to the Minority Majority.


What type of future do you envision for a nation with a policy of ever increasing discrimination against it's largest single ethnic group/race?

That pure white race is fast disappearing. It's becoming more black, Hispanic, and Asian because of interracial marriage. In 2013, the rate of interracial marriages reached 12%, twice as great as it was 20 years ago. By mid-century the difference between races in the US will be far less pronounced and by the end of this century, race will not be a reliable physical characteristic. I believe the Democratic party will continue to favor the lower social economic class. It will not be predominately black or any ethnic group.

a. YOu are kidding yourself.

B. I like the way you just dismissed a century of discrimination, oppression and strife. That's a GREAT POLICY for America.

Well, that's the way it's going to end. The races are going to merge. It's happening now and it will continue at an accelerated pace because the barriers between races, nations and cultures are falling. The world is getting smaller everyday.

And by "it" you are discussing the solid 100 years of ever increasing discrimination, oppression and racial strife.

Which you accept and support.


BTW, people can and will obsess over remaining and/or new differences.

Even once Whites are gone, if that time does come, there will not be uniformity. Hel there will still be fresh immigrants from China, India, Indonesia , Africa, Mexico, ect to keep up a nice populations of "pure" races, to differ from and struggle with the mixes.


For any idea of NOT DOING THAT will be forgotten after a century of discrimination against whites.

100 years of ever increasing discrimination, oppression and racial strife? I don't think so. You have a 100 years of increasing media attention to the problem.

3,959 black people were killed in “racial terror lynchings” in a dozen Southern states between 1877 and 1950 and most of these killings hardly even made the newspapers. In the first half of the 20th century blacks were far worst off than second class citizens. In most communities, they were regarded as inferior to whites in every way. They were not smart enough to operate machinery, not clean enough to engage in sports with whites, and too disease ridden to drink out of the same water fountains as whites. In southern cities, if a black man even looked at a white women in public, he was likely to be put in his place. If a black man entered a swimming pool in the South, he would be immediately arrested, the pool would closed, drained, and cleaned Just applying for a job in an all white factory was often dealt with harshly.

Today when a peacefully demonstrations turns into a riot over a racial killing and dozens are injured, the news media gives it round the clock coverage with the repercussions in the media lasting for months. By contrast, racial riots a hundred years ago make those of today look like a peaceful demonstration. In 1921, hundreds of whites led a racially motivated attack on a black community in Tulsa, Oklahoma, killing some 300 people, mostly blacks. The attack, carried out on the ground and by air, destroyed more than 35 blocks, then the wealthiest black community in the nation. More than 800 people were admitted to hospitals and more than 6,000 black residents were arrested and detained. The attack left an estimated 10,000 people homeless. Fire destroyed 1,256 homes and 191 businesses, as well as the community’s churches, junior high school, and hospitals. Race riots were common in the the first half of 20th century, such as the 1910 Chicago riots, the Springfield riot of 1908, the Detroit riots of 1943, and thousands of racial attacks and killings that were hardly considered news.

 

[Flopper]

That pure white race is fast disappearing. It's becoming more black, Hispanic, and Asian because of interracial marriage.

An Italian family moves to Buenos Aires and their children all learn to speak Spanish around 1900.

Their grand children hate living under a Peronista government and move to the US where they are not considered white because they speak Spanish.

That makes no fucking sense to me.

I as of yet have had no liberal assplain to me how speaking Spanish changes your race from white to Hispanic.

Today, you or your parents can choose your race or races you want to be most closely identified but that may not be how your neighbors identify you due to stereotyping. You can be Hispanic and be any of race categories, White, Black, Asian, Native American, or Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Where race once determined your legal rights within the community, today it's a means of identification and for people a means for unfair treatment. I see so many children of mixed races, it seems to me race as identification is becoming less and less useful and someday we will probably be abandoned.

 

[Correll]

The New Haven Firefighter case shows that ALL dem appointed Justices support Disparate Impact Theory, a legal interpretation of the law that in effect requires racial quotas and thus anti-white discrimination.

This type of discrimination is not going to DECREASE as political power shifts to the Minority Majority.


What type of future do you envision for a nation with a policy of ever increasing discrimination against it's largest single ethnic group/race?

That pure white race is fast disappearing. It's becoming more black, Hispanic, and Asian because of interracial marriage. In 2013, the rate of interracial marriages reached 12%, twice as great as it was 20 years ago. By mid-century the difference between races in the US will be far less pronounced and by the end of this century, race will not be a reliable physical characteristic. I believe the Democratic party will continue to favor the lower social economic class. It will not be predominately black or any ethnic group.

a. YOu are kidding yourself.

B. I like the way you just dismissed a century of discrimination, oppression and strife. That's a GREAT POLICY for America.

Well, that's the way it's going to end. The races are going to merge. It's happening now and it will continue at an accelerated pace because the barriers between races, nations and cultures are falling. The world is getting smaller everyday.

And by "it" you are discussing the solid 100 years of ever increasing discrimination, oppression and racial strife.

Which you accept and support.


BTW, people can and will obsess over remaining and/or new differences.

Even once Whites are gone, if that time does come, there will not be uniformity. Hel there will still be fresh immigrants from China, India, Indonesia , Africa, Mexico, ect to keep up a nice populations of "pure" races, to differ from and struggle with the mixes.


For any idea of NOT DOING THAT will be forgotten after a century of discrimination against whites.

100 years of ever increasing discrimination, oppression and racial strife? I don't think so. You have a 100 years of increasing media attention to the problem.

3,959 black people were killed in “racial terror lynchings” in a dozen Southern states between 1877 and 1950 and most of these killings hardly even made the newspapers. In the first half of the 20th century blacks were far worst off than second class citizens. In most communities, they were regarded as inferior to whites in every way. They were not smart enough to operate machinery, not clean enough to engage in sports with whites, and too disease ridden to drink out of the same water fountains as whites. In southern cities, if a black man even looked at a white women in public, he was likely to be put in his place. If a black man entered a swimming pool in the South, he would be immediately arrested, the pool would closed, drained, and cleaned Just applying for a job in an all white factory was often dealt with harshly.

Today when a peacefully demonstrations turns into a riot over a racial killing and dozens are injured, the news media gives it round the clock coverage with the repercussions in the media lasting for months. By contrast, racial riots a hundred years ago make those of today look like a peaceful demonstration. In 1921, hundreds of whites led a racially motivated attack on a black community in Tulsa, Oklahoma, killing some 300 people, mostly blacks. The attack, carried out on the ground and by air, destroyed more than 35 blocks, then the wealthiest black community in the nation. More than 800 people were admitted to hospitals and more than 6,000 black residents were arrested and detained. The attack left an estimated 10,000 people homeless. Fire destroyed 1,256 homes and 191 businesses, as well as the community’s churches, junior high school, and hospitals. Race riots were common in the the first half of 20th century, such as the 1910 Chicago riots, the Springfield riot of 1908, the Detroit riots of 1943, and thousands of racial attacks and killings that were hardly considered news.

You are talking ancient history on how the battle against white racism was won.


There is no sign that the coming majority has any such inclination for equality.


THe support for the discriminatory Democratic Party is iron strong blocs.


One more dem justice and the New Haven Firefighter case would have made Disparate Impact the law of the land.

One more dem justice in the future and it will be the law of the land.


Discrimination is set to greatly uptick in the near future, unless we have a major change NOW.


The media has demonstrated that they will LIE to support the racial narratives of the Left, of the US whites being the racist, and minorities still being the victims.


Social media has demonstrated that, with the media, that such lies can be shouted into the Conventional Wisdom.


As discrimination increases and whites get more angry, that angry will be reported/perceived as racism. (just like today)


"Racism" will be met with anger and new government counters to protect "minorities" from "racist" whites and to balance out "past injustices".


In other words, more discrimination and oppression.


Which will cause more resentment among whites.

But they will be in the minority. Their interests and concerns will NEVER again be represented on a national level.




Repeat until something breaks.

 

[Rozman]

I heard someone say a funny thing...
When asked what is Trump's position on.....
The answer is....
That depends on who spoke to Trump last....

 

[Correll]

I heard someone say a funny thing...
When asked what is Trump's position on.....
The answer is....
That depends on who spoke to Trump last....

Deport the illegals, bring back manufacturing, and STOP fucking with Russia.


That is what this election is about.


That is what the lefties are so desperate to avoid discussing, at least seriously or honestly.

 

[Flopper]

That pure white race is fast disappearing. It's becoming more black, Hispanic, and Asian because of interracial marriage. In 2013, the rate of interracial marriages reached 12%, twice as great as it was 20 years ago. By mid-century the difference between races in the US will be far less pronounced and by the end of this century, race will not be a reliable physical characteristic. I believe the Democratic party will continue to favor the lower social economic class. It will not be predominately black or any ethnic group.

a. YOu are kidding yourself.

B. I like the way you just dismissed a century of discrimination, oppression and strife. That's a GREAT POLICY for America.

Well, that's the way it's going to end. The races are going to merge. It's happening now and it will continue at an accelerated pace because the barriers between races, nations and cultures are falling. The world is getting smaller everyday.

And by "it" you are discussing the solid 100 years of ever increasing discrimination, oppression and racial strife.

Which you accept and support.


BTW, people can and will obsess over remaining and/or new differences.

Even once Whites are gone, if that time does come, there will not be uniformity. Hel there will still be fresh immigrants from China, India, Indonesia , Africa, Mexico, ect to keep up a nice populations of "pure" races, to differ from and struggle with the mixes.


For any idea of NOT DOING THAT will be forgotten after a century of discrimination against whites.

100 years of ever increasing discrimination, oppression and racial strife? I don't think so. You have a 100 years of increasing media attention to the problem.

3,959 black people were killed in “racial terror lynchings” in a dozen Southern states between 1877 and 1950 and most of these killings hardly even made the newspapers. In the first half of the 20th century blacks were far worst off than second class citizens. In most communities, they were regarded as inferior to whites in every way. They were not smart enough to operate machinery, not clean enough to engage in sports with whites, and too disease ridden to drink out of the same water fountains as whites. In southern cities, if a black man even looked at a white women in public, he was likely to be put in his place. If a black man entered a swimming pool in the South, he would be immediately arrested, the pool would closed, drained, and cleaned Just applying for a job in an all white factory was often dealt with harshly.

Today when a peacefully demonstrations turns into a riot over a racial killing and dozens are injured, the news media gives it round the clock coverage with the repercussions in the media lasting for months. By contrast, racial riots a hundred years ago make those of today look like a peaceful demonstration. In 1921, hundreds of whites led a racially motivated attack on a black community in Tulsa, Oklahoma, killing some 300 people, mostly blacks. The attack, carried out on the ground and by air, destroyed more than 35 blocks, then the wealthiest black community in the nation. More than 800 people were admitted to hospitals and more than 6,000 black residents were arrested and detained. The attack left an estimated 10,000 people homeless. Fire destroyed 1,256 homes and 191 businesses, as well as the community’s churches, junior high school, and hospitals. Race riots were common in the the first half of 20th century, such as the 1910 Chicago riots, the Springfield riot of 1908, the Detroit riots of 1943, and thousands of racial attacks and killings that were hardly considered news.

You are talking ancient history on how the battle against white racism was won.


There is no sign that the coming majority has any such inclination for equality.


THe support for the discriminatory Democratic Party is iron strong blocs.


One more dem justice and the New Haven Firefighter case would have made Disparate Impact the law of the land.

One more dem justice in the future and it will be the law of the land.


Discrimination is set to greatly uptick in the near future, unless we have a major change NOW.


The media has demonstrated that they will LIE to support the racial narratives of the Left, of the US whites being the racist, and minorities still being the victims.


Social media has demonstrated that, with the media, that such lies can be shouted into the Conventional Wisdom.


As discrimination increases and whites get more angry, that angry will be reported/perceived as racism. (just like today)


"Racism" will be met with anger and new government counters to protect "minorities" from "racist" whites and to balance out "past injustices".


In other words, more discrimination and oppression.


Which will cause more resentment among whites.

But they will be in the minority. Their interests and concerns will NEVER again be represented on a national level.





Repeat until something breaks.

I was addressing your statement, "And by "it" you are discussing the solid 100 years of ever increasing discrimination, oppression and racial strife."

Reverse discrimination is pretty laughable to those that have been a victim of real racial discrimination but it's widely accepted among a large segment of the population.

There's been a lot of study done on why Whites feel they're discriminated against. For many whites, progress toward a more equal, multi-racial society decreases feeling of their own self-worth. The poorest Whites use to be able to say no matter how bad it get's, at least I'm not black. Well, that's not very comforting today and lots of people are pissed off because they find themselves at bottom of the totem pole. Rather accept the blame for their lack of mobility, it's a lot easier to claim they did it; they being the government, the democrats, the blacks, the educational system, or whoever.

Obama’s election symbolizes the fact that the traditional hierarchy, in which whites enjoyed certain advantages simply because of their skin color, has been upended. For many whites, that hits home on a deep and painful level, prompting them to adopt beliefs that further widen the racial divide.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Today, you or your parents can choose your race or races you want to be most closely identified but that may not be how your neighbors identify you due to stereotyping. You can be Hispanic and be any of race categories, White, Black, Asian, Native American, or Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Where race once determined your legal rights within the community, today it's a means of identification and for people a means for unfair treatment.

 

[Correll]

a. YOu are kidding yourself.

B. I like the way you just dismissed a century of discrimination, oppression and strife. That's a GREAT POLICY for America.

Well, that's the way it's going to end. The races are going to merge. It's happening now and it will continue at an accelerated pace because the barriers between races, nations and cultures are falling. The world is getting smaller everyday.

And by "it" you are discussing the solid 100 years of ever increasing discrimination, oppression and racial strife.

Which you accept and support.


BTW, people can and will obsess over remaining and/or new differences.

Even once Whites are gone, if that time does come, there will not be uniformity. Hel there will still be fresh immigrants from China, India, Indonesia , Africa, Mexico, ect to keep up a nice populations of "pure" races, to differ from and struggle with the mixes.


For any idea of NOT DOING THAT will be forgotten after a century of discrimination against whites.

100 years of ever increasing discrimination, oppression and racial strife? I don't think so. You have a 100 years of increasing media attention to the problem.

3,959 black people were killed in “racial terror lynchings” in a dozen Southern states between 1877 and 1950 and most of these killings hardly even made the newspapers. In the first half of the 20th century blacks were far worst off than second class citizens. In most communities, they were regarded as inferior to whites in every way. They were not smart enough to operate machinery, not clean enough to engage in sports with whites, and too disease ridden to drink out of the same water fountains as whites. In southern cities, if a black man even looked at a white women in public, he was likely to be put in his place. If a black man entered a swimming pool in the South, he would be immediately arrested, the pool would closed, drained, and cleaned Just applying for a job in an all white factory was often dealt with harshly.

Today when a peacefully demonstrations turns into a riot over a racial killing and dozens are injured, the news media gives it round the clock coverage with the repercussions in the media lasting for months. By contrast, racial riots a hundred years ago make those of today look like a peaceful demonstration. In 1921, hundreds of whites led a racially motivated attack on a black community in Tulsa, Oklahoma, killing some 300 people, mostly blacks. The attack, carried out on the ground and by air, destroyed more than 35 blocks, then the wealthiest black community in the nation. More than 800 people were admitted to hospitals and more than 6,000 black residents were arrested and detained. The attack left an estimated 10,000 people homeless. Fire destroyed 1,256 homes and 191 businesses, as well as the community’s churches, junior high school, and hospitals. Race riots were common in the the first half of 20th century, such as the 1910 Chicago riots, the Springfield riot of 1908, the Detroit riots of 1943, and thousands of racial attacks and killings that were hardly considered news.

You are talking ancient history on how the battle against white racism was won.


There is no sign that the coming majority has any such inclination for equality.


THe support for the discriminatory Democratic Party is iron strong blocs.


One more dem justice and the New Haven Firefighter case would have made Disparate Impact the law of the land.

One more dem justice in the future and it will be the law of the land.


Discrimination is set to greatly uptick in the near future, unless we have a major change NOW.


The media has demonstrated that they will LIE to support the racial narratives of the Left, of the US whites being the racist, and minorities still being the victims.


Social media has demonstrated that, with the media, that such lies can be shouted into the Conventional Wisdom.


As discrimination increases and whites get more angry, that angry will be reported/perceived as racism. (just like today)


"Racism" will be met with anger and new government counters to protect "minorities" from "racist" whites and to balance out "past injustices".


In other words, more discrimination and oppression.


Which will cause more resentment among whites.

But they will be in the minority. Their interests and concerns will NEVER again be represented on a national level.





Repeat until something breaks.

I was addressing your statement, "And by "it" you are discussing the solid 100 years of ever increasing discrimination, oppression and racial strife."

Reverse discrimination is pretty laughable to those that have been a victim of real racial discrimination but it's widely accepted among a large segment of the population.

There's been a lot of study done on why Whites feel they're discriminated against. For many whites, progress toward a more equal, multi-racial society decreases feeling of their own self-worth. The poorest Whites use to be able to say no matter how bad it get's, at least I'm not black. Well, that's not very comforting today and lots of people are pissed off because they find themselves at bottom of the totem pole. Rather accept the blame for their lack of mobility, it's a lot easier to claim they did it; they being the government, the democrats, the blacks, the educational system, or whoever.

Obama’s election symbolizes the fact that the traditional hierarchy, in which whites enjoyed certain advantages simply because of their skin color, has been upended. For many whites, that hits home on a deep and painful level, prompting them to adopt beliefs that further widen the racial divide.

The "reverse discrimination" has been documented in hard numbers, in, for example, Ivy League Admission. Blacks get a 210 point bonus for skin color. That is a lot of discrimination, and a lot of white people who DON'T get Ivy League Educations that they should have received if it was based on merit.


AND, the Ivy League Admission do not have any special factor that makes them more prone to discrimination, they are just very well documented.


The factors that drive that discrimination, ie fear of lawsuits, and ideological commitment to diversity, are universal in our society.


The New Haven FIrefighter case demonstrates the way that a dem victory in this election will lead to greatly INCREASED anti-white discrimination.



You don't get to just dismiss hard numbers and Supreme Court cases.



What deepened the racial divide during the Obama years was the Left's interpretation of bitter partisanship as racism.


That enraged them.

The falsely accused Right, was enraged by the false accusations.


Repeat until something breaks.

 

[Flopper]

That pure white race is fast disappearing. It's becoming more black, Hispanic, and Asian because of interracial marriage. In 2013, the rate of interracial marriages reached 12%, twice as great as it was 20 years ago. By mid-century the difference between races in the US will be far less pronounced and by the end of this century, race will not be a reliable physical characteristic. I believe the Democratic party will continue to favor the lower social economic class. It will not be predominately black or any ethnic group.

a. YOu are kidding yourself.

B. I like the way you just dismissed a century of discrimination, oppression and strife. That's a GREAT POLICY for America.

Well, that's the way it's going to end. The races are going to merge. It's happening now and it will continue at an accelerated pace because the barriers between races, nations and cultures are falling. The world is getting smaller everyday.

And by "it" you are discussing the solid 100 years of ever increasing discrimination, oppression and racial strife.

Which you accept and support.


BTW, people can and will obsess over remaining and/or new differences.

Even once Whites are gone, if that time does come, there will not be uniformity. Hel there will still be fresh immigrants from China, India, Indonesia , Africa, Mexico, ect to keep up a nice populations of "pure" races, to differ from and struggle with the mixes.


For any idea of NOT DOING THAT will be forgotten after a century of discrimination against whites.

100 years of ever increasing discrimination, oppression and racial strife? I don't think so. You have a 100 years of increasing media attention to the problem.

3,959 black people were killed in “racial terror lynchings” in a dozen Southern states between 1877 and 1950 and most of these killings hardly even made the newspapers. In the first half of the 20th century blacks were far worst off than second class citizens. In most communities, they were regarded as inferior to whites in every way. They were not smart enough to operate machinery, not clean enough to engage in sports with whites, and too disease ridden to drink out of the same water fountains as whites. In southern cities, if a black man even looked at a white women in public, he was likely to be put in his place. If a black man entered a swimming pool in the South, he would be immediately arrested, the pool would closed, drained, and cleaned Just applying for a job in an all white factory was often dealt with harshly.

Today when a peacefully demonstrations turns into a riot over a racial killing and dozens are injured, the news media gives it round the clock coverage with the repercussions in the media lasting for months. By contrast, racial riots a hundred years ago make those of today look like a peaceful demonstration. In 1921, hundreds of whites led a racially motivated attack on a black community in Tulsa, Oklahoma, killing some 300 people, mostly blacks. The attack, carried out on the ground and by air, destroyed more than 35 blocks, then the wealthiest black community in the nation. More than 800 people were admitted to hospitals and more than 6,000 black residents were arrested and detained. The attack left an estimated 10,000 people homeless. Fire destroyed 1,256 homes and 191 businesses, as well as the community’s churches, junior high school, and hospitals. Race riots were common in the the first half of 20th century, such as the 1910 Chicago riots, the Springfield riot of 1908, the Detroit riots of 1943, and thousands of racial attacks and killings that were hardly considered news.

You are talking ancient history on how the battle against white racism was won.


There is no sign that the coming majority has any such inclination for equality.


THe support for the discriminatory Democratic Party is iron strong blocs.


One more dem justice and the New Haven Firefighter case would have made Disparate Impact the law of the land.

One more dem justice in the future and it will be the law of the land.


Discrimination is set to greatly uptick in the near future, unless we have a major change NOW.


The media has demonstrated that they will LIE to support the racial narratives of the Left, of the US whites being the racist, and minorities still being the victims.


Social media has demonstrated that, with the media, that such lies can be shouted into the Conventional Wisdom.


As discrimination increases and whites get more angry, that angry will be reported/perceived as racism. (just like today)


"Racism" will be met with anger and new government counters to protect "minorities" from "racist" whites and to balance out "past injustices".


In other words, more discrimination and oppression.


Which will cause more resentment among whites.

But they will be in the minority. Their interests and concerns will NEVER again be represented on a national level.




Repeat until something breaks.

You seem to think that the federal government requires affirmative action in university admissions. The fact is now there is no real federal requirement. There is a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that allows universities to consider race and ethnicity in their admissions decisions for at least 25 years. There is also a 2013 court ruling that allows states to bypass affirmative action in college admissions.

So the question arises why do we have affirmative action in college admissions. Opponents as you point out say the schools fear lawsuits. However, in the 8 states that do not have affirmative action admission policies have no more race related lawsuits today than they did with affirmative action. With or without affirmative action, universities will be taken to court over the issue of discrimination. If this is your concern, then your problem is not with affirmative action, but with enforcement of the Civil Rights Act.

The reason Universities have affirmative action policies is best described by Yale president, Richard Levin.

“There is value in having a class that is widely diverse and represents different racial, ethnic and religious groups,” University President Richard Levin said. “We’re bound by the law as it stands — Yale has practiced affirmative action in admissions since the 1960s and will continue to do so as long as it is consistent with the law of the United States.”

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Donald won't be bringing in millions of Muslims and Mexican criminals like Hillary.

/thread

 

[Correll]

a. YOu are kidding yourself.

B. I like the way you just dismissed a century of discrimination, oppression and strife. That's a GREAT POLICY for America.

Well, that's the way it's going to end. The races are going to merge. It's happening now and it will continue at an accelerated pace because the barriers between races, nations and cultures are falling. The world is getting smaller everyday.

And by "it" you are discussing the solid 100 years of ever increasing discrimination, oppression and racial strife.

Which you accept and support.


BTW, people can and will obsess over remaining and/or new differences.

Even once Whites are gone, if that time does come, there will not be uniformity. Hel there will still be fresh immigrants from China, India, Indonesia , Africa, Mexico, ect to keep up a nice populations of "pure" races, to differ from and struggle with the mixes.


For any idea of NOT DOING THAT will be forgotten after a century of discrimination against whites.

100 years of ever increasing discrimination, oppression and racial strife? I don't think so. You have a 100 years of increasing media attention to the problem.

3,959 black people were killed in “racial terror lynchings” in a dozen Southern states between 1877 and 1950 and most of these killings hardly even made the newspapers. In the first half of the 20th century blacks were far worst off than second class citizens. In most communities, they were regarded as inferior to whites in every way. They were not smart enough to operate machinery, not clean enough to engage in sports with whites, and too disease ridden to drink out of the same water fountains as whites. In southern cities, if a black man even looked at a white women in public, he was likely to be put in his place. If a black man entered a swimming pool in the South, he would be immediately arrested, the pool would closed, drained, and cleaned Just applying for a job in an all white factory was often dealt with harshly.

Today when a peacefully demonstrations turns into a riot over a racial killing and dozens are injured, the news media gives it round the clock coverage with the repercussions in the media lasting for months. By contrast, racial riots a hundred years ago make those of today look like a peaceful demonstration. In 1921, hundreds of whites led a racially motivated attack on a black community in Tulsa, Oklahoma, killing some 300 people, mostly blacks. The attack, carried out on the ground and by air, destroyed more than 35 blocks, then the wealthiest black community in the nation. More than 800 people were admitted to hospitals and more than 6,000 black residents were arrested and detained. The attack left an estimated 10,000 people homeless. Fire destroyed 1,256 homes and 191 businesses, as well as the community’s churches, junior high school, and hospitals. Race riots were common in the the first half of 20th century, such as the 1910 Chicago riots, the Springfield riot of 1908, the Detroit riots of 1943, and thousands of racial attacks and killings that were hardly considered news.

You are talking ancient history on how the battle against white racism was won.


There is no sign that the coming majority has any such inclination for equality.


THe support for the discriminatory Democratic Party is iron strong blocs.


One more dem justice and the New Haven Firefighter case would have made Disparate Impact the law of the land.

One more dem justice in the future and it will be the law of the land.


Discrimination is set to greatly uptick in the near future, unless we have a major change NOW.


The media has demonstrated that they will LIE to support the racial narratives of the Left, of the US whites being the racist, and minorities still being the victims.


Social media has demonstrated that, with the media, that such lies can be shouted into the Conventional Wisdom.


As discrimination increases and whites get more angry, that angry will be reported/perceived as racism. (just like today)


"Racism" will be met with anger and new government counters to protect "minorities" from "racist" whites and to balance out "past injustices".


In other words, more discrimination and oppression.


Which will cause more resentment among whites.

But they will be in the minority. Their interests and concerns will NEVER again be represented on a national level.




Repeat until something breaks.

You seem to think that the federal government requires affirmative action in university admissions. The fact is now there is no real federal requirement. There is a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that allows universities to consider race and ethnicity in their admissions decisions for at least 25 years. There is also a 2013 court ruling that allows states to bypass affirmative action in college admissions.

So the question arises why do we have affirmative action in college admissions. Opponents as you point out say the schools fear lawsuits. However, in the 8 states that do not have affirmative action admission policies have no more race related lawsuits today than they did with affirmative action. With or without affirmative action, universities will be taken to court over the issue of discrimination. If this is your concern, then your problem is not with affirmative action, but with enforcement of the Civil Rights Act.

The reason Universities have affirmative action policies is best described by Yale president, Richard Levin.

“There is value in having a class that is widely diverse and represents different racial, ethnic and religious groups,” University President Richard Levin said. “We’re bound by the law as it stands — Yale has practiced affirmative action in admissions since the 1960s and will continue to do so as long as it is consistent with the law of the United States.”

Yes, the Disparate Impact Theory and the New Haven Firefighter case was about enforcement of the Civil Rights Acts. The fear of the city council of a lawsuit drove them to blatant anti-white discrimination.




You quote University President Levin arguing that there is a benefit from having a more diverse student body. This paradigm is obviously part of the problem of anti-white discrimination that has been heavily documented in Ivy League admissions.


If the next University President believed that there was a benefit from having a LESS diverse student body AND analysis of admissions showed that he was given an effective SAT bonus of 210 points to white students to get that "benefit" you would easily see that that was racism.


But when it is BLACK students that get that 210 points, you support it and do not consider it racism.


And finally there is no benefit from ethnic/racial diversity. That is a racist belief system. A meme that is very similar to the belief(s) in the past of black inferiority.

 

[Flopper]

Well, that's the way it's going to end. The races are going to merge. It's happening now and it will continue at an accelerated pace because the barriers between races, nations and cultures are falling. The world is getting smaller everyday.

And by "it" you are discussing the solid 100 years of ever increasing discrimination, oppression and racial strife.

Which you accept and support.


BTW, people can and will obsess over remaining and/or new differences.

Even once Whites are gone, if that time does come, there will not be uniformity. Hel there will still be fresh immigrants from China, India, Indonesia , Africa, Mexico, ect to keep up a nice populations of "pure" races, to differ from and struggle with the mixes.


For any idea of NOT DOING THAT will be forgotten after a century of discrimination against whites.

100 years of ever increasing discrimination, oppression and racial strife? I don't think so. You have a 100 years of increasing media attention to the problem.

3,959 black people were killed in “racial terror lynchings” in a dozen Southern states between 1877 and 1950 and most of these killings hardly even made the newspapers. In the first half of the 20th century blacks were far worst off than second class citizens. In most communities, they were regarded as inferior to whites in every way. They were not smart enough to operate machinery, not clean enough to engage in sports with whites, and too disease ridden to drink out of the same water fountains as whites. In southern cities, if a black man even looked at a white women in public, he was likely to be put in his place. If a black man entered a swimming pool in the South, he would be immediately arrested, the pool would closed, drained, and cleaned Just applying for a job in an all white factory was often dealt with harshly.

Today when a peacefully demonstrations turns into a riot over a racial killing and dozens are injured, the news media gives it round the clock coverage with the repercussions in the media lasting for months. By contrast, racial riots a hundred years ago make those of today look like a peaceful demonstration. In 1921, hundreds of whites led a racially motivated attack on a black community in Tulsa, Oklahoma, killing some 300 people, mostly blacks. The attack, carried out on the ground and by air, destroyed more than 35 blocks, then the wealthiest black community in the nation. More than 800 people were admitted to hospitals and more than 6,000 black residents were arrested and detained. The attack left an estimated 10,000 people homeless. Fire destroyed 1,256 homes and 191 businesses, as well as the community’s churches, junior high school, and hospitals. Race riots were common in the the first half of 20th century, such as the 1910 Chicago riots, the Springfield riot of 1908, the Detroit riots of 1943, and thousands of racial attacks and killings that were hardly considered news.

You are talking ancient history on how the battle against white racism was won.


There is no sign that the coming majority has any such inclination for equality.


THe support for the discriminatory Democratic Party is iron strong blocs.


One more dem justice and the New Haven Firefighter case would have made Disparate Impact the law of the land.

One more dem justice in the future and it will be the law of the land.


Discrimination is set to greatly uptick in the near future, unless we have a major change NOW.


The media has demonstrated that they will LIE to support the racial narratives of the Left, of the US whites being the racist, and minorities still being the victims.


Social media has demonstrated that, with the media, that such lies can be shouted into the Conventional Wisdom.


As discrimination increases and whites get more angry, that angry will be reported/perceived as racism. (just like today)


"Racism" will be met with anger and new government counters to protect "minorities" from "racist" whites and to balance out "past injustices".


In other words, more discrimination and oppression.


Which will cause more resentment among whites.

But they will be in the minority. Their interests and concerns will NEVER again be represented on a national level.




Repeat until something breaks.

You seem to think that the federal government requires affirmative action in university admissions. The fact is now there is no real federal requirement. There is a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that allows universities to consider race and ethnicity in their admissions decisions for at least 25 years. There is also a 2013 court ruling that allows states to bypass affirmative action in college admissions.

So the question arises why do we have affirmative action in college admissions. Opponents as you point out say the schools fear lawsuits. However, in the 8 states that do not have affirmative action admission policies have no more race related lawsuits today than they did with affirmative action. With or without affirmative action, universities will be taken to court over the issue of discrimination. If this is your concern, then your problem is not with affirmative action, but with enforcement of the Civil Rights Act.

The reason Universities have affirmative action policies is best described by Yale president, Richard Levin.

“There is value in having a class that is widely diverse and represents different racial, ethnic and religious groups,” University President Richard Levin said. “We’re bound by the law as it stands — Yale has practiced affirmative action in admissions since the 1960s and will continue to do so as long as it is consistent with the law of the United States.”

Yes, the Disparate Impact Theory and the New Haven Firefighter case was about enforcement of the Civil Rights Acts. The fear of the city council of a lawsuit drove them to blatant anti-white discrimination.




You quote University President Levin arguing that there is a benefit from having a more diverse student body. This paradigm is obviously part of the problem of anti-white discrimination that has been heavily documented in Ivy League admissions.


If the next University President believed that there was a benefit from having a LESS diverse student body AND analysis of admissions showed that he was given an effective SAT bonus of 210 points to white students to get that "benefit" you would easily see that that was racism.


But when it is BLACK students that get that 210 points, you support it and do not consider it racism.


And finally there is no benefit from ethnic/racial diversity. That is a racist belief system. A meme that is very similar to the belief(s) in the past of black inferiority.

To begin with, Yale ranks 124 in diversity among of other major colleges and universities. At Yale only 6.8% of the student body is black.

Where do you get this 210 SAT bonus? It is certainly not part of the admission policy.

Quoting from Yale's admission policies, " The single most important document in your application is your high school transcript, which tells us a great deal more about your academic drive and performance over time than test scores. Yale has no cutoff scores for admission. It is unlikely that high standardized test scores will persuade the admissions committee to disregard an undistinguished secondary-school record. Written essays, recommendations, and interviews also carry heavy weight with admissions committee."

Most universities today are moving away from using standardized test scores as a primary determination of admission but rather they are putting much greater emphasis on the secondary school record. As one admission's office said, " Standardize test scores correlate well with secondary school records. When there is strong divergence between the two, then there is cause to investigate.

Saying there is no benefit from ethnic/racial diversity is ridiculous. Diversity of perspective, cultures, genders, and age is essential to growth and prosperity of any company today because diversity breeds innovation. According to the Harvard School of Business, multicultural diversity in a student's education will be a critical factor for success in the future.

 

[Correll]

And by "it" you are discussing the solid 100 years of ever increasing discrimination, oppression and racial strife.

Which you accept and support.


BTW, people can and will obsess over remaining and/or new differences.

Even once Whites are gone, if that time does come, there will not be uniformity. Hel there will still be fresh immigrants from China, India, Indonesia , Africa, Mexico, ect to keep up a nice populations of "pure" races, to differ from and struggle with the mixes.


For any idea of NOT DOING THAT will be forgotten after a century of discrimination against whites.

100 years of ever increasing discrimination, oppression and racial strife? I don't think so. You have a 100 years of increasing media attention to the problem.

3,959 black people were killed in “racial terror lynchings” in a dozen Southern states between 1877 and 1950 and most of these killings hardly even made the newspapers. In the first half of the 20th century blacks were far worst off than second class citizens. In most communities, they were regarded as inferior to whites in every way. They were not smart enough to operate machinery, not clean enough to engage in sports with whites, and too disease ridden to drink out of the same water fountains as whites. In southern cities, if a black man even looked at a white women in public, he was likely to be put in his place. If a black man entered a swimming pool in the South, he would be immediately arrested, the pool would closed, drained, and cleaned Just applying for a job in an all white factory was often dealt with harshly.

Today when a peacefully demonstrations turns into a riot over a racial killing and dozens are injured, the news media gives it round the clock coverage with the repercussions in the media lasting for months. By contrast, racial riots a hundred years ago make those of today look like a peaceful demonstration. In 1921, hundreds of whites led a racially motivated attack on a black community in Tulsa, Oklahoma, killing some 300 people, mostly blacks. The attack, carried out on the ground and by air, destroyed more than 35 blocks, then the wealthiest black community in the nation. More than 800 people were admitted to hospitals and more than 6,000 black residents were arrested and detained. The attack left an estimated 10,000 people homeless. Fire destroyed 1,256 homes and 191 businesses, as well as the community’s churches, junior high school, and hospitals. Race riots were common in the the first half of 20th century, such as the 1910 Chicago riots, the Springfield riot of 1908, the Detroit riots of 1943, and thousands of racial attacks and killings that were hardly considered news.

You are talking ancient history on how the battle against white racism was won.


There is no sign that the coming majority has any such inclination for equality.


THe support for the discriminatory Democratic Party is iron strong blocs.


One more dem justice and the New Haven Firefighter case would have made Disparate Impact the law of the land.

One more dem justice in the future and it will be the law of the land.


Discrimination is set to greatly uptick in the near future, unless we have a major change NOW.


The media has demonstrated that they will LIE to support the racial narratives of the Left, of the US whites being the racist, and minorities still being the victims.


Social media has demonstrated that, with the media, that such lies can be shouted into the Conventional Wisdom.


As discrimination increases and whites get more angry, that angry will be reported/perceived as racism. (just like today)


"Racism" will be met with anger and new government counters to protect "minorities" from "racist" whites and to balance out "past injustices".


In other words, more discrimination and oppression.


Which will cause more resentment among whites.

But they will be in the minority. Their interests and concerns will NEVER again be represented on a national level.




Repeat until something breaks.

You seem to think that the federal government requires affirmative action in university admissions. The fact is now there is no real federal requirement. There is a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that allows universities to consider race and ethnicity in their admissions decisions for at least 25 years. There is also a 2013 court ruling that allows states to bypass affirmative action in college admissions.

So the question arises why do we have affirmative action in college admissions. Opponents as you point out say the schools fear lawsuits. However, in the 8 states that do not have affirmative action admission policies have no more race related lawsuits today than they did with affirmative action. With or without affirmative action, universities will be taken to court over the issue of discrimination. If this is your concern, then your problem is not with affirmative action, but with enforcement of the Civil Rights Act.

The reason Universities have affirmative action policies is best described by Yale president, Richard Levin.

“There is value in having a class that is widely diverse and represents different racial, ethnic and religious groups,” University President Richard Levin said. “We’re bound by the law as it stands — Yale has practiced affirmative action in admissions since the 1960s and will continue to do so as long as it is consistent with the law of the United States.”

Yes, the Disparate Impact Theory and the New Haven Firefighter case was about enforcement of the Civil Rights Acts. The fear of the city council of a lawsuit drove them to blatant anti-white discrimination.




You quote University President Levin arguing that there is a benefit from having a more diverse student body. This paradigm is obviously part of the problem of anti-white discrimination that has been heavily documented in Ivy League admissions.


If the next University President believed that there was a benefit from having a LESS diverse student body AND analysis of admissions showed that he was given an effective SAT bonus of 210 points to white students to get that "benefit" you would easily see that that was racism.


But when it is BLACK students that get that 210 points, you support it and do not consider it racism.


And finally there is no benefit from ethnic/racial diversity. That is a racist belief system. A meme that is very similar to the belief(s) in the past of black inferiority.

To begin with, Yale ranks 124 in diversity among of other major colleges and universities. At Yale only 6.8% of the student body is black.

Where do you get this 210 SAT bonus? It is certainly not part of the admission policy.

Quoting from Yale's admission policies, " The single most important document in your application is your high school transcript, which tells us a great deal more about your academic drive and performance over time than test scores. Yale has no cutoff scores for admission. It is unlikely that high standardized test scores will persuade the admissions committee to disregard an undistinguished secondary-school record. Written essays, recommendations, and interviews also carry heavy weight with admissions committee."

Most universities today are moving away from using standardized test scores as a primary determination of admission but rather they are putting much greater emphasis on the secondary school record. As one admission's office said, " Standardize test scores correlate well with secondary school records. When there is strong divergence between the two, then there is cause to investigate.

Saying there is no benefit from ethnic/racial diversity is ridiculous. Diversity of perspective, cultures, genders, and age is essential to growth and prosperity of any company today because diversity breeds innovation. According to the Harvard School of Business, multicultural diversity in a student's education will be a critical factor for success in the future.

1. From this Princeton University study. Which has been widely reported and discussed.

https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission Preferences Espenshade Chung Walling Dec 2004.pdf


. "Based on complete data for three applicant cohorts to three of the most academically selective research universities, we show that admission bonuses for athletes and legacies rival, and sometimes even exceed, the size of preferences for underrepresented minority applicants. Being African American instead of white is worth an average of 230 additional SAT points on a 1600-point scale, but recruited athletes reap an advantage equivalent to 200 SAT points. Other things equal, Hispanic applicants gain the equivalent of 185 points, which is only slightly more than the legacy advantage, which is worth 160 points. Coming from an Asian background, however, is comparable to the loss of 50 SAT points. As sizeable as these preferences are, we provide evidence that their magnitudes are biased down by relying on SAT scores as the sole indicator of academic merit. When such additional measures as high school GPA and class rank are included, being a recruited athlete has an even greater impact on one’s chances of admission. The African-American and Hispanic advantage also increases, as does the disadvantage if one has an Asian background"


Our current system is one of institutionalized anti-white discrimination, which is poised to greatly INCREASE if or when the Supreme Court goes liberal.


As I pointed out, the factors that drive this discrimination, are not limited to Ivy League Universities, but universal in our society.


I am against this racism.

You support it.





2. I note that you repeat your position that diversity is good, with more detail, ie it breeds innovation, and you cite an Authority.

None of that actually supports your claim.