The US Supreme Court has just abolished Affirmative Action in regards to college/university admissions. Do you believe this is right or wrong?

[Deleted member 559230]

Yes, I agree it was the right thing to do. We shouldn't be giving priority to people of color as everyone should be treated equally.

 

[Foxi4]

Yeah, opinion polls at this stage of the game wouldn't mean much anyway, and it's much easier to stand by a candidate before they've been convicted of what amounts to treason. Not to diminish the majority of his base's devotion of course, I'm sure they would travel to the depths of hell and get stuck there for him. If there's a red line for those among his cultists with an ounce of sanity left, however, it's probably offering foreign officials peep shows featuring nuclear and military secrets.

Trump already lost to Biden once without that disadvantage, and lost several elections for the party prior. Odds aren't looking great to turn that trend around if he's the candidate again.

I disagree with this assessment. Biden was in a good position due to the fear of the COVID pandemic, among other things. Large swathes of Biden’s voters are disillusioned with how their knee jerk vote turned out. The way this administration operates is less than optimal, and people see that, no matter how many lies the White House correspondents try to feed us. I’m not saying that Trump’s magically going to win - his chances are significantly lower than in 2016, but that’s not the reason why he’ll have a hard time. My point is that his base doesn’t care about the indictment, or in fact treat it as proof positive that they were right. Frankly, I can’t muster the strength to care much about it myself, seeing that apparently every U.S. official keeps confidential documents in their bathroom, or the garage, or on a private e-mail server, or in a bathtub somewhere.

LMAO more like a new personality coach AND a new campaign manager. Was it Paul Ryan who once sweat buckets while delivering the Republican response to one of Obama's speeches? Whoever it was, that's who DeSantis reminds me of. Awkward, sweaty, and the male equivalent of a Karen.

I mean, you can say that, but odds are he might be formidable candidate one day. Not this time around, but sometime in the future. I wouldn’t dismiss him.

 

[Xzi]

Frankly, I can’t muster the strength to care much about it myself, seeing that apparently every U.S. official keeps confidential documents in their bathroom, or the garage, or on a private e-mail server, or in a bathtub somewhere.

That was after all Trump's goal, to equate recipe e-mails to top secret documents so much that when it came time to find out he was in the business of sharing top secret documents with our enemies, those susceptible to repetition would shrug. I for one will show no such sympathy. Reap what you sow, don't throw stones from glass houses, lock him up, etc and and so forth. Gonna be a hell of an uphill battle attempting to combat someone with Jack Smith's record with bus stop defense lawyers, but he decided put himself in that situation.

I mean, you can say that, but odds are he might be formidable candidate one day. Not this time around, but sometime in the future. I wouldn’t dismiss him.

Hey alright, they said the same thing about Paul Ryan back in the day. The comparison becomes even more fitting.

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

You're not comprehending this scenario, which has happened. Not all public schools offer AP courses meaning that at some public schools you literally cannot get a 4.2, meaning there's an objective disadvantage.

If you still don't get it, and don't get how affirmative action offsets this to some extent, then it's not possible to have a discussion with you on this.

That disadvantage is not based on race.

Thanks for stopping by.

 

[Foxi4]

That was after all Trump's goal, to equate recipe e-mails to top secret documents so much that when it came time to find out he was in the business of sharing top secret documents with our enemies, those susceptible to repetition would shrug. I for one will show no such sympathy. Reap what you sow, don't throw stones from glass houses, lock him up, etc and and so forth. Gonna be a hell of an uphill battle attempting to combat someone with Jack Smith's record with bus stop defense lawyers, but he decided put himself in that situation.

He was Chief Executive at the time. As far as I’m concerned, he had executive privilege to show any document to the devil himself if he so pleased.

Hey alright, they said the same thing about Paul Ryan back in the day. The comparison becomes even more fitting.

I suppose time will tell. Everything depends on how far the pendulum swings. Remember, Hillary was projected to win with what odds? 92%? “Reap what you sow” works both ways, history has seen weirder outcomes before.

 

[Gamemaster1379]

I'm not "hating white people," I'm white. I'm acknowledging some objective truths about our past and present. Without affirmative action, admissions offices might as well skip to the part where they ask parents about their annual income. The morality of determining someone's worth from their bank account aside, that sounds like a "fair" method of determining eligibility, until you remember that some of those applying are descendants of slaves, and others the descendants of slave owners. You can probably take an educated guess as to who will have the bigger account nine times out of ten.

Even more ridiculous is that affirmative action was being considered "reparations" of sorts, despite the fact that very few of those impacted by slavery saw any benefit from it. I think this strengthens the argument that monetary reparations need to be paid to all those affected instead.

> I'm not "hating white people," I'm white.

Funny, I remember 10-15 years ago on the internet that the favorite phrase of everyone was "It's okay, I can say the n-word, I'm black".

Identifying with self-deprecating behavior does not preclude you from not holding prejudice against that group.

White liberals (by self-definition) are the only sub-set race of people that are actually known to knowingly resent and reject others of their racial group. Such behavior has not been found in any other racial or political group.

> some objective truths about our past
Fair.

> and present
Incorrect. Those are not objective truths. They are subjective.

WalterSlovotsky's post is spot-on that it is is basically commonly accepted culture to hate white people.


The irony of your belief system that whites still have "objective advantages", is that you are taking a group that is trying to move forward in life just like anyone else, and at every opportunity, those in positions of power to impact their life will rugpull them on the belief that person is privileged and will get their "privileged advantage" elsewhere. If everyone does that, then that individual will not be able to meet their basic needs in education and employment, and they will fall into poverty and that will have ripple effects to future generations. The irony of these supposed "reparations" or whatever mindset you have are creating a new multi-generation ripple effect to another racial group in an effort to make up for it being done to another.


The other ironic thing about your statements in that your righteous brigade to seek equality (or equity, whichever it is), is that you promote racist and prejudiced rhetoric by suggest that Clarence Thomas himself is a man incapable of getting ahead in life by his merits and had to rely on affirmative action to make up for his lack of ability.

 

[Xzi]

He was Chief Executive at the time. As far as I’m concerned, he had executive privilege to show any document to the devil himself if he so pleased.

It's been at least a week since the story dropped that the "standing order to declassify" he supposedly issued while president has no record of existing. You'll have to excuse the zero shocked gasps coming from the peanut gallery, but it was always a lie.

White liberals (by self-definition) are the only sub-set race of people that are actually known to knowingly resent and reject others of their racial group. Such behavior has not been found in any other racial or political group.

Good thing I'm a white leftist instead then, and what I'm preaching against is capitalism as both the means of discrimination and as providing plausible deniability for the same. We ALL deserve housing, food, medicine, clean air, and clean water as human rights, but the system as it is would rather allocate that money toward bombing brown kids in the Middle East.

The other ironic thing about your statements in that your righteous brigade to seek equality (or equity, whichever it is), is that you promote racist and prejudiced rhetoric by suggest that Clarence Thomas himself is a man incapable of getting ahead in life by his merits and had to rely on affirmative action to make up for his lack of ability.

Affirmative action was the only means by which black Americans could realistically expect college acceptance during the era in which it was first implemented. This was hot on the heels of public school desegregation, so merit had absolutely nothing to do with it. Granted, I don't believe Thomas is fit to serve on the court, but that has everything to do with his poor judgment and inability to stay impartial as an individual, and nothing to do with his race.

 

[Foxi4]

It's been at least a week since the story dropped that the "standing order to declassify" he supposedly issued while president has no record of existing. You'll have to excuse the zero shocked gasps coming from the peanut gallery, but it was always a lie.

There never needed to be one. It’s a constitutional issue, the Chief Executive has the final say in regards to document classification and dissemination, a power vested in the office by Article 2. Not only does he not need to ask permission, he’s not limited in regards to who he shares information with because the power exists outside of any congressional grant. If he decides to show a document to someone or store it in a certain way, that’s up to him. Of course I’m sure the prosecutor and judges will find a paragraph on him regardless of the Constitution, Navy v. Egan or the general court precedent regarding executive privilege, but I’m not terribly interested in the outcome either way. Like we discussed in the other thread, “President Felon” has a nice ring to it, plus it would be pretty funny.

 

[RetroGen]

There never needed to be one. It’s a constitutional issue, the Chief Executive has the final say in regards to document classification and dissemination, a power vested in the office by Article 2. Not only does he not need to ask permission, he’s not limited in regards to who he shares information with because the power exists outside of any congressional grant. If he decides to show a document to someone or store it in a certain way, that’s up to him. Of course I’m sure the prosecutor and judges will find a paragraph on him regardless of the Constitution, Navy v. Egan or the general court precedent regarding executive privilege, but I’m not terribly interested in the outcome either way. Like we discussed in the other thread, “President Felon” has a nice ring to it, plus it would be pretty funny.

Trump is no longer president and Trump the private citizen has no such powers nor legal protection. This argument seems to be made in bad faith and reeks of blind rightwing apologetics, in wilful denial of the fact that any presidential powers granted by the constitution do not apply to anyone who is not currently president. It is a red herring to argue from the position that Trump still retains presidential powers when this is clearly false. It doesn't matter what powers Trump had as president; he no longer holds that office nor the powers and legal protections granted by that position. Further, Trump has admitted on record that he was aware that he was in possession of still-classified documents after he was no longer president, thus demonstrating that he knew was acting illegally. Moreover, I don't recall anyone on Trump's legal team making any argument citing Article 2, so it is probably without a shred of legal merit or else we would be seeing it.

 

[Foxi4]

Trump is no longer president and Trump the private citizen has no such powers nor legal protection. This argument seems to be made in bad faith and reeks of blind rightwing apologetics, in wilful denial of the fact that any presidential powers granted by the constitution do not apply to anyone who is not currently president. It is a red herring to argue from the position that Trump still retains presidential powers when this is clearly false. It doesn't matter what powers Trump had as president; he no longer holds that office nor the powers and legal protections granted by that position. Further, Trump has admitted on record that he was aware that he was in possession of still-classified documents after he was no longer president, thus demonstrating that he knew was acting illegally. Moreover, I don't recall anyone on Trump's legal team making any argument citing Article 2, so it is probably without a shred of legal merit or else we would be seeing it.

Lex prospicit non respicit.

 

[RetroGen]

Lex prospicit non respicit.

Stultus verbis non corrigitur...

 

[Xzi]

There never needed to be one. It’s a constitutional issue, the Chief Executive has the final say in regards to document classification and dissemination, a power vested in the office by Article 2. Not only does he not need to ask permission, he’s not limited in regards to who he shares information with because the power exists outside of any congressional grant. If he decides to show a document to someone or store it in a certain way, that’s up to him. Of course I’m sure the prosecutor and judges will find a paragraph on him regardless of the Constitution, Navy v. Egan or the general court precedent regarding executive privilege, but I’m not terribly interested in the outcome either way. Like we discussed in the other thread, “President Felon” has a nice ring to it, plus it would be pretty funny.

Nah, the independent state legislature theory was just tossed out by a biased SCOTUS, unitary executive theory is an equally invalid Republican pipe dream. If Trump wants to show off Mar-A-Lago's security schematics to Putin and Kim Jong Un, past present or future, he can have at it. Sharing information that could weaken the entire United States and its allies? Now we have a fucking problem, to the extent that if the criminal justice system is unable or unwilling to dole out the appropriate consequences, they should be doled out by a guillotine's blade tip instead. You can't threaten a man's family and expect to walk away scot-free, and Trump's actions pose a threat to every American family, all for the sake of his own greed and stupidity.

The most valuable thing that dime store grifter will ever provide the world is the unisex bathroom at the site of his grave.

 

[Foxi4]

Stultus verbis non corrigitur.

It’s not my fault that you don’t understand what the defense argument stems from - that’s your problem. Establishing a timeline of events will be pivotal in the case. If the disclosure took place at a time when Trump had executive privilege then the prosecution’s argument falls flat because, again, the law looks forwards, not backwards. I’m not particularly interested in the proceedings because I’m not interested in the outcome, I’m merely saying that Article 2 has been the cornerstone of the investigation’s critics for a good part of 2 years now, and it’s accurate.

Nah, the independent state legislature theory was just tossed out by a biased SCOTUS, unitary executive theory is an equally invalid Republican pipe dream. If Trump wants to show off Mar-A-Lago's security schematics to Putin and Kim Jong Un, past present or future, he can have at it. Sharing information that could weaken the entire United States and its allies? Now we have a fucking problem, to the extent that if the criminal justice system is unable or unwilling to dole out the appropriate consequences, they should be doled out by a guillotine's blade tip instead. You can't threaten a man's family and expect to walk away scot-free, and Trump's actions pose a threat to every American family, all for the sake of his own greed and stupidity.

The most valuable thing that dime store grifter will ever provide the world is the unisex bathroom at the site of his grave.

That’s not what I was referring to, but have at it. As for unitary executive theory, as far as dissemination of confidential documents is concerned, the status of the documents and the manner of their dissemination is at the President’s sole discretion. If the documents were shared at a time when he was in office, it doesn’t really matter what he *said* or *believed* at the time, there’s a pre-existing Supreme Court precedent. It would take a challenge at the level of the SCOTUS in order to overturn it. Not that it matters in the scope of this thread anyway. None of this pertains to Affirmative Action.

 

[RetroGen]

It’s not my fault that you don’t understand what the defense argument stems from - that’s your problem. Establishing a timeline of events will be pivotal in the case. If the disclosure took place at a time when Trump had executive privilege then the prosecution’s argument falls flat because, again, the law looks forwards, not backwards. I’m not particularly interested in the proceedings because I’m not interested in the outcome, I’m merely saying that Article 2 has been the cornerstone of the investigation’s critics for a good part of 2 years now, and it’s accurate.

Seems dubious that a Trump supporter would make such claims in good faith, yet continue to promote a fringe legal interpretation that absolves Trump. Reads much more like Republican propaganda than anything objective.

 

[Foxi4]

Seems dubious that a Trump supporter would make such claims in good faith, yet continue to promote a fringe legal interpretation that absolves Trump. Reads much more like Republican propaganda than anything objective.

Fringe? The SCOTUS is the highest court in the land. To my recollection, the recording was made during the final days of the administration, when Trump was still president. As for the decision, I quote:

The President, after all, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S.Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy (…) flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.

In the case of Navy v. Egan the case surrounded a person occupying a position in the Executive Branch, but it establishes a principle all the same. Article 2 grants the sitting President ultimate authority in regards to dissemination of documents. The office of the Presidency is the only office in the U.S. government which gets to decide the rules regarding status and dissemination of classified documents, normally by way of E.O., but it is *unclear* if the office itself is even bound by such orders, or orders made by the predecessors, on the basis of the power vested in them since the Constitution stands above any other law.

Based on this principle, in my opinion it is difficult to argue that Trump disseminated information he “wasn’t supposed to share” - you have no evidence that he’s done so after he lost his executive privilege. We do have evidence that he retained classified documents after his term concluded, so you can try and hook him on that, but there’s only so much you can do about being tardy or otherwise reluctant with returning them - it’s a flimsy case, but a case nonetheless. From that point of view, it’s kind of irrelevant want Trump *thought* or *said* he could or couldn’t do - he thinks and says a lot of things, many of those things are untrue.

Here’s a different example of Trump disclosing otherwise classified information that would land *anyone besides him* in jail, but by the virtue of his position in government, was perfectly legal for him to do:

”First, this is not a question of “leaking classified information” or breaking a criminal law. Let’s dispense with one easy rabbit hole that a lot of people are likely to go down this evening: the President did not “leak” classified information in violation of law. He is allowed to do what he did. If anyone other than the President disclosed codeword intelligence to the Russians in such fashion, he’d likely be facing a long prison term. But Nixon’s infamous comment that “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal” is actually true about some things. Classified information is one of them. The nature of the system is that the President gets to disclose what he wants.” - National Security expert interviewed by Lawfare in regards to the Trump-Lavrov codeword controversy in 2017

You’re not supposed to “leak” classified codewords to potential military adversaries… unless you’re the president, in which case it’s not a “leak” at all. The president has executive privilege, he/she can disclose any information privy to them, to anyone they deem fit, with exceedingly few exceptions.

 

[Xzi]

If the documents were shared at a time when he was in office, it doesn’t really matter what he *said* or *believed* at the time, there’s a pre-existing Supreme Court precedent.

Well therein lies the confusion I suppose: he's accused of sharing them both while in and out of office. Despite that and the mountain of supporting evidence, seemingly the only reason he's being prosecuted at all is because he refused to hand over all the documents when requested, and repeatedly lied about his compliance in doing so. Moreover, tapes and records show he was "unusually/creepily obsessed with" some of the documents, and would repeatedly ask for their whereabouts. Dementia's a bitch.

None of this pertains to Affirmative Action.

Indeed, it's been derailed to enough subsequent topics already.

 

[Foxi4]

Well therein lies the confusion I suppose: he's accused of sharing them both while in and out of office. Despite that and the mountain of supporting evidence, seemingly the only reason he's being prosecuted at all is because he refused to hand over all the documents when requested, and repeatedly lied about his compliance in doing so. Moreover, tapes and records show he was "unusually/creepily obsessed with" some of the documents, and would repeatedly ask for their whereabouts. Dementia's a bitch.

The real reason why he’s being prosecuted for retention of classified documents and not for their dissemination is that it would be exceedingly difficult to prove that he wasn’t allowed to do that. Good luck arguing that in front of the SCOTUS, you’d need absolute, bulletproof evidence that he did it after leaving office. I keep saying that, and yet for some reason everyone’s up in arms. I didn’t set the precedent, I didn’t write the Constitution, I can only explain why things are the way they are to the best of my ability and own understanding.

Indeed, it's been derailed to enough subsequent topics already.

Let’s get back on topic then.

 

[titan_tim]

Chief Executive has the final say in regards to document classification and dissemination, a power vested in the office by Article 2

If that's the only defense he has for all his multiple actions of obstruction, then he'll have a very short trial.

Even shorter still, knowing that he's on two different tapes admitting that he didn't declassify the documents he was showing others.

 

[Foxi4]

If that's the only defense he has for all his multiple actions of obstruction, then he'll have a very short trial.

Even shorter still, knowing that he's on two different tapes admitting that he didn't declassify the documents he was showing others.

That’s not a defense for obstruction. It also doesn’t matter what he says, what matters is what he’s legally permitted to do, regardless of whether he’s aware of the extent of his executive privilege or not. As far as this thread is concerned, I think the diversion has ran its course - we should wait for the case to conclude, then we can discuss it in another thread dedicated to that issue specifically. This one’s about Affirmative Action.

 

[Xzi]

The real reason why he’s being prosecuted for retention of classified documents and not for their dissemination is that it would be exceedingly difficult to prove that he wasn’t allowed to do that. Good luck arguing that in front of the SCOTUS, you’d need absolute, bulletproof evidence that he did it after leaving office. I keep saying that, and yet for some reason everyone’s up in arms. I didn’t set the precedent, I didn’t write the Constitution, I can only explain why things are the way they are to the best of my ability and own understanding.

Well he's being prosecuted for ALL of it now, last I heard they're adding another 30 charges to the already substantial pile, and he's got two other criminal cases pending against him; though one has a moderate chance of being dropped. Regardless, he's running out of allies who aren't just sycophantic parasites, and he's running out of lawyers. If he was smart he would've taken whatever plea bargain they were offering, but having spent his entire life gaming the legal and court systems, he figured he'd slip out like a greased pig one more time.

I don't have much more to say on the topic of the SCOTUS affirmative action ruling other than how much it's undercut by their ruling which legalizes homophobia on religious grounds. Particularly because the entire case was fake, a false grievance in which the plantiff's name and information was being used without their consent or knowledge. Either SCOTUS was aware of the deception and ruled on it anyway, which would make those in favor of the ruling entirely corrupt, or SCOTUS didn't do their due diligence on the case, which is grievously incompetent.