The next Republican President hasn't been born yet

[bedowin62]

affirmative action is itself a false premise. the "remedy" is only affirmative to one group, at the expense of the other

 

[Conservative65]

AA judges by the color of skin. It uses the mindset that denying someone on race is wrong but benefiting because of the same race is OK.

We all know employers who will discriminate based on race if they get the chance. Not acceptable.

You know that? Then you should find it easy to provide PROOF of that claim.

AA discriminates based on race each and every time it's used. The problem is you think that's OK.

If you don't believe it, then you are an idiot. An AA is not race discriminaion in the sense you discuss it. You have no cred on this. No racialistsdoes.

When the same factor that you say is wrong if used to deny is used to place someone above another person, it's discrimination.

If you want to have a double standard on the same factor, go for it. We're used to it from you guys.

You start with a fallacy of false premise.

So race isn't a consideration used in AA policy?

 

[JakeStarkey]

We all know employers who will discriminate based on race if they get the chance. Not acceptable.

You know that? Then you should find it easy to provide PROOF of that claim.

AA discriminates based on race each and every time it's used. The problem is you think that's OK.

If you don't believe it, then you are an idiot. An AA is not race discriminaion in the sense you discuss it. You have no cred on this. No racialistsdoes.

When the same factor that you say is wrong if used to deny is used to place someone above another person, it's discrimination.

If you want to have a double standard on the same factor, go for it. We're used to it from you guys.

You start with a fallacy of false premise.

So race isn't a consideration used in AA policy?

Fallacy of wrongful presumption. You suggest, ipso facto, that such is wrongful. That does not wash. You have to aruge with substantive fact and analysis that your presumption is correct.

 

[Conservative65]

You know that? Then you should find it easy to provide PROOF of that claim.

AA discriminates based on race each and every time it's used. The problem is you think that's OK.

If you don't believe it, then you are an idiot. An AA is not race discriminaion in the sense you discuss it. You have no cred on this. No racialistsdoes.

When the same factor that you say is wrong if used to deny is used to place someone above another person, it's discrimination.

If you want to have a double standard on the same factor, go for it. We're used to it from you guys.

You start with a fallacy of false premise.

So race isn't a consideration used in AA policy?

Fallacy of wrongful presumption. You suggest, ipso facto, that such is wrongful. That does not wash. You have to aruge with substantive fact and analysis that your presumption is correct.

If using RACE to deny something is wrong, then using the same factor in order to benefit can't be anything but wrong.

I don't presume. AA considers race and it damn sure doesn't consider every race just certain ones.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you don't believe it, then you are an idiot. An AA is not race discriminaion in the sense you discuss it. You have no cred on this. No racialistsdoes.

When the same factor that you say is wrong if used to deny is used to place someone above another person, it's discrimination.

If you want to have a double standard on the same factor, go for it. We're used to it from you guys.

You start with a fallacy of false premise.

So race isn't a consideration used in AA policy?

Fallacy of wrongful presumption. You suggest, ipso facto, that such is wrongful. That does not wash. You have to aruge with substantive fact and analysis that your presumption is correct.

If using RACE to deny something is wrong, then using the same factor in order to benefit can't be anything but wrong.

I don't presume. AA considers race and it damn sure doesn't consider every race just certain ones.

False conclusion: A = B foward, it must be A = B backward, if A = wrong. You have not shown that consideration of race is always wrong.

 

[Conservative65]

When the same factor that you say is wrong if used to deny is used to place someone above another person, it's discrimination.

If you want to have a double standard on the same factor, go for it. We're used to it from you guys.

You start with a fallacy of false premise.

So race isn't a consideration used in AA policy?

Fallacy of wrongful presumption. You suggest, ipso facto, that such is wrongful. That does not wash. You have to aruge with substantive fact and analysis that your presumption is correct.

If using RACE to deny something is wrong, then using the same factor in order to benefit can't be anything but wrong.

I don't presume. AA considers race and it damn sure doesn't consider every race just certain ones.

False conclusion: A = B foward, it must be A = B backward, if A = wrong. You have not shown that consideration of race is always wrong.

Are you willing to say that using race to deny someone something can be OK at certain times?

 

[Toro]

Sounds like flippant Democratic bragging

But the current breakout of Red States/Blue States gives the Democrats a huge advantage. Bush struggled to reach 270 EVs and needed to nearly sweep swing states to make it
Both sides do not start the election with a clean slate. The Dems start with 242 EV while the Republicans only control 192. To win, Democrats only need to get 28 EVs out of the remaining swing state votes
Even the swing states are starting to lean blue.

I doubt if I will ever see another Republican President in my lifetime

 

[JakeStarkey]

You start with a fallacy of false premise.

So race isn't a consideration used in AA policy?

Fallacy of wrongful presumption. You suggest, ipso facto, that such is wrongful. That does not wash. You have to aruge with substantive fact and analysis that your presumption is correct.

If using RACE to deny something is wrong, then using the same factor in order to benefit can't be anything but wrong.

I don't presume. AA considers race and it damn sure doesn't consider every race just certain ones.

False conclusion: A = B foward, it must be A = B backward, if A = wrong. You have not shown that consideration of race is always wrong.

Are you willing to say that using race to deny someone something can be OK at certain times?

You are making the argument not me. Get to it.

 

[bedowin62]

You know that? Then you should find it easy to provide PROOF of that claim.

AA discriminates based on race each and every time it's used. The problem is you think that's OK.

If you don't believe it, then you are an idiot. An AA is not race discriminaion in the sense you discuss it. You have no cred on this. No racialistsdoes.

When the same factor that you say is wrong if used to deny is used to place someone above another person, it's discrimination.

If you want to have a double standard on the same factor, go for it. We're used to it from you guys.

You start with a fallacy of false premise.

So race isn't a consideration used in AA policy?

Fallacy of wrongful presumption. You suggest, ipso facto, that such is wrongful. That does not wash. You have to aruge with substantive fact and analysis that your presumption is correct.

oooh oooh pick me!!

i can argue that, idiot. Take the practice of "banding" test scores for example. if a fire department has X number of positions to fill; and the white candidate that got ninety on the firefighter exam got his score "banded" with non-white candidate the got an 80 on the test; then he or she is now equal and the politically-correct union and city leaders are now free to be arbitrary about which one to choose. when the number of open positions are filled there will be white people who scored higher on the test than Black or Hispanics did but are left on the outside looking in

 

[Conservative65]

So race isn't a consideration used in AA policy?

Fallacy of wrongful presumption. You suggest, ipso facto, that such is wrongful. That does not wash. You have to aruge with substantive fact and analysis that your presumption is correct.

If using RACE to deny something is wrong, then using the same factor in order to benefit can't be anything but wrong.

I don't presume. AA considers race and it damn sure doesn't consider every race just certain ones.

False conclusion: A = B foward, it must be A = B backward, if A = wrong. You have not shown that consideration of race is always wrong.

Are you willing to say that using race to deny someone something can be OK at certain times?

You are making the argument not me. Get to it.

Afraid to answer I see.

 

[bedowin62]

(a) Banding: This is a practice where ranges of scores on an exam are lumped together into groups or “bands,” as a means of concealing inter-group differences in performance. All the scores within any particular band (or range of scores) are considered equivalent. In their essay “The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action,” W.A. Gamson and A. Modigliani explain: “For example, scores from 90 to 100 might all be designated ‘excellent,’ and scores from 80 to 89 might all be considered ‘good.’ An evaluator would distinguish between excellent scores and good scores, but all scores within a band would be counted [as] the same. Thus, an A differs from a B, but all A’s are treated as equivalent to one another, as are all B’s.” After race-norming was outlawed by the 1991 Civil Rights Act, banding became a popular method by which employers sought to “balance” their workforces.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fallacy of wrongful presumption. You suggest, ipso facto, that such is wrongful. That does not wash. You have to aruge with substantive fact and analysis that your presumption is correct.

If using RACE to deny something is wrong, then using the same factor in order to benefit can't be anything but wrong.

I don't presume. AA considers race and it damn sure doesn't consider every race just certain ones.

False conclusion: A = B foward, it must be A = B backward, if A = wrong. You have not shown that consideration of race is always wrong.

Are you willing to say that using race to deny someone something can be OK at certain times?

You are making the argument not me. Get to it.

Afraid to answer I see.

You mean you are afraid to make your argument. I don't have to.

 

[bedowin62]

If using RACE to deny something is wrong, then using the same factor in order to benefit can't be anything but wrong.

I don't presume. AA considers race and it damn sure doesn't consider every race just certain ones.

False conclusion: A = B foward, it must be A = B backward, if A = wrong. You have not shown that consideration of race is always wrong.

Are you willing to say that using race to deny someone something can be OK at certain times?

You are making the argument not me. Get to it.

Afraid to answer I see.

You mean you are afraid to make your argument. I don't have to.

you're the one avoiding basic realities; nobody else

 

[Dot Com]

I see conservatard65 has derailed this thread into one about race. Surprised. I think I'll start referring to him as "Tank II"

BACK TO TOPIC:

Teapubs inability to field an electable Presidential candidate.

Discuss.....

 

[JakeStarkey]

EasyT and Tank and S. J. and Lonestar_Logic etc are also joined by saintmichaeldefendthem and Correll now.

Correll is shyer about outright announcing his racialism, but it shines through when he writes, nonetheless.

 

[bedowin62]

I see conservatard65 has derailed this thread into one about race. Surprised. I think I'll start referring to him as "Tank II"

BACK TO TOPIC:

Teapubs inability to field an electable Presidential candidate.

Discuss.....

okay.......................


Poll: Trump beats Hillary head-to-head | TheHill
thehill.com/.../252825-poll-trump-beats-hillary-head-to-head

• Cached

The Hill
Loading...
Sep 4, 2015 - Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump leads Democrat Hillary Clinton ... In other head-to-head matchups, Trump beats out Sen


Carly Fiorina tops Hillary Clinton in head-to-head matchup ...
www.washingtontimes.com/.../carly-fiorina-tops-...

• Cached

The Washington Times
Loading...
Sep 24, 2015 - Carly Fiorina tops Hillary Clinton in head-to-head matchup: poll .... NO republican could have beaten Boxer in the liberal mecca district she ...


Hillary Trails 8 GOP Hopefuls, with Dr. Ben Carson Running ...
www.rushlimbaugh.com › Archives (Aug 20, 2015)

• Cached

Rush Limbaugh
Loading...
Aug 20, 2015 - In a head-to-head matchup in this poll, Hillary is beaten by eight of them. Trump leads the GOP field with moderates, 29%. He's got 25% ...

 

[Conservative65]

If using RACE to deny something is wrong, then using the same factor in order to benefit can't be anything but wrong.

I don't presume. AA considers race and it damn sure doesn't consider every race just certain ones.

False conclusion: A = B foward, it must be A = B backward, if A = wrong. You have not shown that consideration of race is always wrong.

Are you willing to say that using race to deny someone something can be OK at certain times?

You are making the argument not me. Get to it.

Afraid to answer I see.

You mean you are afraid to make your argument. I don't have to.

My argument is that if using race to deny is wrong, using race to benefit is also wrong. You're the one saying it's OK to consider race at times. I asked if you considered denying due to race was OK as you thought using it to benefit was OK. You refused to answer. That's enough to support my claim.

 

[Dot Com]

False conclusion: A = B foward, it must be A = B backward, if A = wrong. You have not shown that consideration of race is always wrong.

Are you willing to say that using race to deny someone something can be OK at certain times?

You are making the argument not me. Get to it.

Afraid to answer I see.

You mean you are afraid to make your argument. I don't have to.

My argument is that if using race to deny is wrong, using race to benefit is also wrong. You're the one saying it's OK to consider race at times. I asked if you considered denying due to race was OK as you thought using it to benefit was OK. You refused to answer. That's enough to support my claim.

wrong thread bucko

this thread is about ELECTABLE Repub Presidential candidates being an endangered species

 

[Redfish]

The next Republican President hasn't been born yet

It's remarkable that people actually start up ridiculous threads like this. The insinuation that the GOP has no more hope of having one of their own elected President in my lifetime, considering the Red State / Blue State B$ mentioned, AFTER THE MONUMEWNTAL, RECORD-SETTING HISTORICAL ASS-KICKING they just got last November is absolutely INSANE.

Yeah, I know, I've heard it - 'low voter turn-out'. Liberals cite that as a 'positive', but the low turn-out was of RECORD-SETTING numbers. That tells me, and anyone who looks at it objectively, that it wasn't just low turn-out. It was low turn-out because even Liberal voters in large numbers REJECTED what their 'Representatives' were doing.

Many Democrats I talked to were FURIOUS with how their elected Reps had OPENLY begun refusing to represent them but instead had begin imposing their own agenda / will on them. The proverbial straw that broke the camel's (or Donkey's) back for them was when Pelosi declared the American people had no RIGHT to know what was in massive legislation that was so drastically going to impact their lives until it had been forced into law...and then exempted themselves from it.

It was MORE than that, though. Liberals politicians were avoiding Obama like the plague - no one wanted him to come campaign for / with them. This infuriated the Narcissist And Chief. He could not accept that his own party candidates were shunning him, that he was somehow a detriment...so he made the entire election about HIM and HIS Policies. He declared to America that 'this election is about ME and MY policies'. Democrats may have had a better chance up until then, but when Obama made the election about him and his policies, that spurred Conservatives and even Independents on to vote against them in a sign of 'REJECTION'. Liberals, still loyal to their party, could not vote AGAINST their own party....but they would not come out to vote FOR it, either...so, in a way, was its own way of REJECTING Obama's agenda and policies.

Moronic GOP Establishment politicians WRONGLY interpreted the election results as a 'mandate' for their actions/performance/agenda - they were WAY wrong. The DNC's historic loss had nothing to do with them at all. It was all about Obama and his policies - HE himself made it so. If Liberals take the same approach as these Establishment GOP politicians and think they are unbeatable in the 2016 election...especially when their candidates are a re-tread, old, lying, deceitful, un-trustworthy (60% of Americans believe she is the most un-trustworthy candidate running), self-serving, power-hungry, scandal-plagued dinosaur and an OPENLY admitted Socialist Party Member they will be sadly surprised in 2016.

My prediction is that a GOP President will be elected, but the GOP - if something does not change - will lose either the House or Senate - or BOTH - for the same reason the Democrats were lost the House and the Senate...a rejection of bad performance and LACK of policy (whereas the DNC's/Obama's was BAD policy).

What I posted in post #132

The Realities of the 2016 election are:
1. Republicans have a death grip on the House: Gerrymandering has assured GOP control till at least 2022
2. Democrats will retake the Senate as the Republicans have to defend 24 seats with many seats in Blue States. Dems only have to defend 10 all in Blue States
3. A Democrat will win the White House based on already having 242 Electoral Votes going in

I think that by controlling the Statehouses Republicans will maintain their grip on the House well into the 2030s. That does nothing to negate the control Democrats have over the Electoral College

Unless Republicans find a way to gerrymander the Electoral College process, they will not elect another President in the foreseeable future

Well thats your dream, we will see how it works out. We understand that you are a dem mouthpiece whose purpose in life is to post the latest dem/lib talking points. you are fooling no one.

That is the political reality of 2016

Why not address the points ?

The political reality of 2016 is that americans are fed up with the corruption, partisan bullshit, and greed in the current government. They are fed up with both parties. Thats exactly why Trump, Carson, and Sanders are as popular as they are.

Americans will only take so much shit until they say ENOUGH and kick all of them out. 2016 could be the year that that happens.

So get off your fuckin democrat horse and face reality. He is walking in horseshit and its flying up in your face.

TeaTards

TeaTards are fed up with everything. Very few TeaTards in swing states and it is swing states that elect Presidents

The tea party will not swing the next election and neither will hispanics. What will swing the next election are two factions:
1. those who see HRC for lying corrupt bitch that she is
2. those who are fed up with both parties and their corrupt self interest at the expense of the country.

Those two factions explain why Sanders, Trump, Carson, and Fiorina are leading in all polls.
When Biden gets in, Hillary will be finished.

 

[Redfish]

Easy....... Name any blue states you think will go Red in 2016
Name the swing states that Republicans will take in 2016 that they didn't take in 2012

Sorry my friend, I, unlike you don't operate under the illusion that I'm clairvoyant which would be especially silly since we're not even certain who's going to be running. Therefore making such predictions on such a micro scale is foolish in the extreme and is likely to come back and bite you right in the rear end.

Fortunately you seem to take being made fun of with a healthy sense humor so I suspect you'll be no worse for the wear if a Republican wins 2016 and all the right wingers bring back this thread and rub your nose in it.

For the record, I have no idea which party will take the White House in 2016, all that is certain is that modern Presidential history (since the end of WW II) has shown a strong propensity for the White House to change parties after no more than 2 terms (Reagan being the only exception) so history suggests that the Republicans have the odds in their favor. Personally I think it's natural that after 8 years of eating one flavor of partisan bullshit the America people want a change and choose to dine on the other flavor of partisan bullshit for a while. I also think if the Democrats are foolish enough to nominate her Highness the Marquees of Corruption and Scandal it will just improve the Republicans odds but that's just my opinion.

It doesn't take clairvoyance. All it takes is looking at how states have voted over the last six elections. It doesn't take a crystal ball to figure out that California and New York will go blue and that Texas and Alabama will go Red

You are welcome to bookmark this thread and rub my nose in it if a Republican wins. I may just keep bumping the thread till Election Day to remind Republicans that their task is futile

Reagan won 49 states.

That was thirty years ago. The dynamics have changed significantly and as much as Republican candidates embrace Reagan, they are no Reagan

If you watched the dem "debate" last night you know that no one in that clown car has a chance of winning. The only sane person on the stage was Webb and they wouldn't let him talk.