Will the Supreme Court End Affirmative Action with Fisher v U of Texas?

[iceaura]

A black kid from East St Louis who scores pretty high on the SATs is more likely to be worthy of college admission than a white kid from a Connecticut with slightly higher SAT scores, don't you think?
”
Quite the contrary, actually:

American Indian, African American, and Hispanic students are overpredicted by all measures and
combination of measures. African American students’ FYGPA tends to be the most overpredicted with
mean standardized residuals ranging from -0.32 to -0.17.

How is that relevant?

Surely you don't mean to imply that "more worthy of admission" is somehow equivalent to "most likely to fit in, get good grades, graduate on time, etc"?

I can see the difference, in that White people overwhelmingly voted for someone who was not their race to be their President.

That is false. They - "white people" in general - didn't. And they failed to do so in perhaps the most extreme circumstances available - the lack of any credible alternative to vote for.

Seems that says quite a lot about the actual level of prejudice in the country.

Anyone who followed the campaign and voting patterns did have the opportunity to learn a lot about the actual level of racial bigotry in the US, yep. Most people paying that kind of attention already knew most of that stuff, though.

The people responsible for the Republican campaign rhetoric and tactics certainly did.

 

[adoucette]

That is false. They - "white people" in general - didn't.

BS, he got 43% of the white vote, which is HUGE considering that he only got 53% of the votes.

 

[Tiassa]

Syllogistically Speaking ....

Syllogistically Speaking ....

Let us examine a few statements:

• "I can see the difference, in that White people overwhelmingly voted for someone who was not their race to be their President.
Seems that says quite a lot about the actual level of prejudice in the country." (Adoucette, #16)​

That was challenged:

• "That is false. They - "white people" in general - didn't. And they failed to do so in perhaps the most extreme circumstances available - the lack of any credible alternative to vote for." (Iceaura, #21)​

And the challenge rejected:

• "BS, he got 43% of the white vote, which is HUGE considering that he only got 53% of the votes." (Adoucette, #22)​

Now, in the first place, apparently 43% is an "overwhelming" majority, especially compared with the 51% of whites who voted for McCain.

Or, for those who attend reality, the statement that, "White people overwhelmingly voted for someone who was not their race", is false.

Still, though, setting that point aside, we can try this out syllogistically:

• 43% of white voters voting for Obama "says quite a lot about the actual level of prejudice in the country".

• 51% of white voters voted for McCain.

∴ The majority of white voters said quite a lot about the actual level of prejudice in the country by voting against the black man.​

Of course, syllogisms don't actually need to be true in order to be valid. That is, a syllogism must simply obey the constraints of the ideas it considers, regardless of their validity. But therein we find the problem that arises when people make up random arguments without thinking through the implications.

If the white voters supporting Obama are so significant an indicator of prejudice in America, then so also are the white voters who supported McCain. By Adoucette's own standard, it would appear that a majority of whites are still racist.

This is the sort of rhetorical tangle that comes when someone tries to use a single event to say that racism in America is over.

Of course, what else do we expect when one asserts that 43% is an "overwhelming" statistic compared to 51%?

 

[adoucette]

I didn't say overwhelming MAJORITY, but 43% of whites voting for a Black man to be their president is a huge level of support, particularly when that party only gets a bit over half the support.

And NO, your issue that 51 percent voted for McCain shows no such thing.

Blacks are only 12% of the country but Obama got 96% of the Black vote.

Which of course, is racist, but who's counting?

 

[cosmictraveler]

Blacks are only 12% of the country but Obama got 96% of the Black vote.

Which of course, is racist, but who's counting?

Is it racist when people vote for who they believe is the better candidate based upon their promises and hopes that they can do better than the opponent? I recall that the majority of blacks also voted for Jimmy Carter.

 

[madanthonywayne]

This is the sort of rhetorical tangle that comes when someone tries to use a single event to say that racism in America is over.

Of course, what else do we expect when one asserts that 43% is an "overwhelming" statistic compared to 51%?

Let's put it another way, for a Democrat, Obama did very well. Democrats have lost the white vote in every election since 1968:

No Democratic presidential candidate has won the "white vote" since 1964.

Add Obama's name to a long list of white Democrats who lost that demographic: Humphrey in 1968; McGovern in 1972; Carter in 1976 and 1980; Mondale in 1984; Dukakis in 1988; Clinton in 1992 and 1996; Gore in 2000.

In fact, white voters preferred Obama to Sen. John Kerry -- who lost the white vote by 17 points in 2004, while Obama lost it in 2008 by "only" 12 points. Obama improved on Kerry's share of the white vote in every age demographic, including the 18- to 29-year-olds (which Kerry lost).
​

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...and_kerry_lost_the_white_vote_too_107987.html​

The biggest impediment Obama faced among white voters was not his race. It was the same problem that faced Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. He was a Democrat.

 

[adoucette]

Is it racist when people vote for who they believe is the better candidate based upon their promises and hopes that they can do better than the opponent? I recall that the majority of blacks also voted for Jimmy Carter.

Nah, JC only got 85% of the Black Vote.

For the last several decades about 11 to 14% of the Black vote went Republican.

 

[James R]

adoucette:

What's wrong with you?

First you claim that a majority of white people voted for Obama, when only 43% did.
Now you claim that the 85% of black people who voted for Carter was somehow not a majority of the black vote.

Are you statistically impaired, or on something?

 

[adoucette]

adoucette:

What's wrong with you?

First you claim that a majority of white people voted for Obama, when only 43% did.
Now you claim that the 85% of black people who voted for Carter was somehow not a majority of the black vote.

Are you statistically impaired, or on something?

Nothing's wrong with me James.

Overwhelming does NOT mean MAJORITY.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/overwhelming

In politics the definition I was using was "Overpowering in effect", and getting 43% of the White vote was quite sufficient to get him elected.

On the other hand, had Whites overwhelmingly rejected Obama because of his race, he never could have been elected.

But when only about half the voters vote for either candidate, A Democrat getting 43% of the White vote did show an overwhelming level of support from the White Democrats and Independents.

As to the Jimmy Carter reference, I meant Nah, he didn't get anywhere near the 96% that Obama did.

James, you really should try not to be so silly in your parsing of replies.

Try to remember that they are part of a conversation.

 

[James R]

adoucette:

This was your statement:

I can see the difference, in that White people overwhelmingly voted for someone who was not their race to be their President.

As has been pointed out, 43% of white people voted for Obama. Is that "overwhelming"?

The question is: how would a sensible person understand your statement? The answer is: they would understand you to have implied that a significant (indeed, a large) majority of white people voted for Obama.

Now you're backing away of course:

Overwhelming does NOT mean MAJORITY.

So, you're now saying that an overwhelming minority of white people voted for Obama, are you? And that's what you meant all along?

For future reference, please give us your definition of "overwhelming minority".

Then we come to Carter.

I recall that the majority of blacks also voted for Jimmy Carter.

Nah, JC only got 85% of the Black Vote.

What could "Nah" possibly mean here? It sure sounds like you're disputing the statement made by cosmictraveler.

But again, apparently not:

As to the Jimmy Carter reference, I meant Nah, he didn't get anywhere near the 96% that Obama did.

But cosmictraveler made no claim about the percentage of votes, except that Carter got more than 50%. And your response was "Nah".

And now you have the gall to post this:

James, you really should try not to be so silly in your parsing of replies.

Here's some advice: you really should try to express yourself clearly. And also, own your errors. Don't try to cover them up. It makes you look small.

 

[adoucette]

James, NO PARTY gets more than 50% of the vote, so CLEARLY an overwhelming number of the White DEMOCRATS supported Obama.

Were you also expecting that White REPUBLICANS would also be voting for him?

And before you claim that Republicans wouldn't support a Black person, remember that they were quite heavy in their support for Cain prior to his demise over non-political issues.

What is clear is that race does not disqualify you for running for the top spot in the country, and even winning that spot.



As to my comment to Cosmic, it's part of a conversation.

I claimed that part of the vote for Obama was Racist because 96% of Blacks voted for him, which means that about 6% switched parties to vote for him.

Cosmic disagreed and pointed out that all these black voters voted for Jimmy Carter, but the NAH, was in reference to the fact that it didn't negate the racism in Obama's election because JC only got 85% of the black vote, which is FAR less than Obama did.

Of course you would take it that I apparently think that 85% is not a majority,and indeed ask WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME and if I'm IMPAIRED.

Which if you were not a moderator would likely get you a warning.

But you feel you can insult members with impunity just because of your moderator status.

Shame on you James.

You should NOT be a moderator.

 

[spidergoat]

It's not necessarily racist for black people to vote for Obama. The Republican party inherited all the southern segregationists, and black people would have to be insane to vote for that party.

 

[adoucette]

It's not necessarily racist for black people to vote for Obama. The Republican party inherited all the southern segregationists, and black people would have to be insane to vote for that party.

No, most Blacks are Democrats, but you have to admit that the big bump he got in the Black vote was because he is black.

Which is racist.

And if a woman ran for President she would likely get a similar bump in the number of female supporters.

 

[James R]

adoucette:

James, NO PARTY gets more than 50% of the vote, so CLEARLY an overwhelming number of the White DEMOCRATS supported Obama.

Are you really this dense?

I remind you once again of your original statement:

I can see the difference, in that White people overwhelmingly voted for someone who was not their race to be their President.

There's no mention of white DEMOCRATS there, is there? You explicitly said white PEOPLE.

Your continued squirming to try to extricate yourself from your mistakes isn't making you look any better. You're starting to remind me of Tach.

What is clear is that race does not disqualify you for running for the top spot in the country, and even winning that spot.

You've had both white and black Presidents, so you're just stating the obvious here. Attempting to distract, I guess.

I claimed that part of the vote for Obama was Racist because 96% of Blacks voted for him, which means that about 6% switched parties to vote for him.

I'm not quite sure where you get that 6% from. But are you claiming that black people vote overwhelming on the basis of race and not on other issues? (Oops, there's that word "overwhelming" again. Maybe I should rephrase, lest you misinterpret. I mean "by a great majority" and not an "overwhelming minority".)

Of course you would take it that I apparently think that 85% is not a majority,and indeed ask WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME and if I'm IMPAIRED.

When somebody says to you that a majority of black people voted for Jimmy Carter, and in fact 85% did, it seems to me that "Nah" is not an appropriate response. It is, in fact, just wrong.

But you feel you can insult members with impunity just because of your moderator status.

Shame on you James.

You should NOT be a moderator.

You may feel insulted when your errors are pointed out and your word is not automatically taken as unquestionable truth. I'm sorry about that, but I can only advise you to grow a thicker skin.

In fact, what drew my attention to this thread in the first place was that somebody reported your silly posts for trolling. To quote their report:

Why is arthur still allowed to tell blatant lies and contradict people when its not true. Cosmic said the majority of blacks voted for Jimmy Carter. Arthur says no, he only got 85%of the vote. Arthur is a liar, 85% is the majority, and Jimmy Carter got the majority of the black vote. End of story.

Instead of banning you, or even giving you an official warning, I decided to simply confront you with your stupidity. And here you are telling me I'm not fit to be a moderator.

Maybe next time I won't bother. I'll just ban you instead.

 

[adoucette]

adoucette:



Are you really this dense?

I remind you once again of your original statement:



There's no mention of white DEMOCRATS there, is there? You explicitly said white PEOPLE.

And again, no one expected the Republicans en masse to vote for a Democrat.

So the only question was would the White Democrats support a Black man?

And YES, they OVERWHELMINGLY DID.

(And in the recent Republican campaign we find that Republicans will likewise support a Black candidate)


As to the report, a GOOD moderator would have looked at that and realized that my posting history shows that I know what a majority is and so what is an ALTERNATIVE interpretation of my post?

Which of course there is a rational one.

The fact that a majority of blacks voted for JC did NOT negate my claim, that the 96% represented a degree of racism, hence the NAH.

Not take it inanely as "NAH, 85% isn't a Majority".

Instead of banning you, or even giving you an official warning, I decided to simply confront you with your stupidity. And here you are telling me I'm not fit to be a moderator.

Maybe next time I won't bother. I'll just ban you instead.

And there you go again James.

Making threats to ban me when there was NO Trolling and NO Lying.

Just two posters conversing about a subject.

 

[James R]

adoucette:

What? You're still persisting with this?

As to the report, a GOOD moderator would have looked at that and realized that my posting history shows that I know what a majority is and so what is an ALTERNATIVE interpretation of my post?

What you appear to be saying here is that moderators at least, and likely general readers as well, ought to try to second-guess the apparent meaning of your posts and try to guess at what you might have really meant, instead of taking your words at face value.

You don't think that's a bit much to expect?

You know, a much simpler solution to your problem would be to say what you actually want to say in the first place.

Or, to admit your mistakes when you make them and stop these silly acrobatics of yours in an attempt to save face after the event.

And there you go again James.

Making threats to ban me when there was NO Trolling and NO Lying.

Please note that I have not accused you of lying. I have merely accused you of making some extremely silly statements, then persisting in trying to defend them long after that became untenable. The report to which I responded did accuse you of lying, of course. And that's one interpretation that's open to people when you aren't clear about what you're trying to say.

As for threats, I have not threatened to ban you. If I wanted to ban you, I would ban you. I would not make threats about it.

The very fact that I didn't ban you for lying based on the report alone should tell you something. In fact, I decided to handle this particular matter without using official processes at all. You have received no official warnings and you have not been banned. All that has occurred here is that you've made yourself look a but stupid.

One final point: reporting me to myself is unlikely to be very useful. When you hit that "report" button, I see the report. True, a number of other moderators and admins get to see it too, but I'm not at all concerned about that. If they are interested, they will read this thread in context. By filing reports about how I am "calling [you] names" and so on, you just look like a whiner. Please grow up.

 

[adoucette]

What you appear to be saying here is that moderators at least, and likely general readers as well, ought to try to second-guess the apparent meaning of your posts and try to guess at what you might have really meant, instead of taking your words at face value.

James, everyone's posts get misunderstood from time to time.

Sometimes it's the readers fault and sometimes it's the writers fault.

But to THREATEN TO BAN someone just because their post was not clear is the sign of a very poor and vindictive moderator.

Any DECENT moderator would have simply told me that people were questioning my post and simply asked me to clarify what I meant by it.

Not that difficult of a job actually.

And YES James, you did threaten to Ban me just for making a post which wasn't clear:

Maybe next time I won't bother. I'll just ban you instead.

Of course you don't see that, but then that's why you are a poor moderator.

 

[James R]

I think we have clarified what you meant at this point, adoucette.

Are we done?

 

[Tiassa]

Superficial and Clueless

I didn't say overwhelming MAJORITY, but 43% of whites voting for a Black man to be their president is a huge level of support, particularly when that party only gets a bit over half the support.

What you claimed was that "White people overwhelmingly voted for someone who was not their race to be their President".

You can argue with your own record all you want, and try to convince people that you didn't say what you said, but if you keep doing that sort of thing, don't wonder why people think you're a dishonest troll.

And NO, your issue that 51 percent voted for McCain shows no such thing.

Of course it doesn't. Not according to reality. But according to Adoucette?

"I can see the difference, in that White people overwhelmingly voted for someone who was not their race to be their President.
Seems that says quite a lot about the actual level of prejudice in the country."​

If you don't like the implications of your logic, then perhaps you might consider guarding against those implications.

Blacks are only 12% of the country but Obama got 96% of the Black vote.

Which of course, is racist, but who's counting?

The first part of that is a non sequitur unto itself.

But, as to racism, consider a very direct analogy:

Ambassador Gary Locke, the former Secretary of Commerce, served as Governor of Washington state from 1997-2005. He is Asian-American by heritage. I, also, am Asian-American by heritage. I voted for him twice. Therefore, according to your logic, my vote must have been the result of racism.

However, perhaps there is another explanation. In 1996, Locke defeated Ellen Craswell, a right-wing lunatic without much of a clue about reality, and who ran on a bigoted, evangelical platform.

In 2000, Gov. Locke defeated John Carlson, a Seattle right-wing radio host who, like Creswell, is infamous for his rejection of recognizable fact and reality.

These weren't hard choices for Washington voters. Craswell lost by nearly 16%; to use your own formulation, Locke received 37.8% more votes. Carlson lost by 19.7%; or, by your formulation, Locke received 47.1% more votes.

This is what happens when one party runs lunacy against reasonable, well-expressed policy outlooks.

Is it at all possible that a disingenuous, old-school politician with a lunatic running mate just didn't appeal to voters who happened to be black? That a ticket associated with a party out to hurt black people might not reflect the political interests of black people?​

Yes, it's true that people generally favor politicians whose platforms they perceive are favorable to them.

In order to not be racist, should I have voted for lunatic bigots who would have completely screwed over the state of Washington?

People are not going to think very highly an argument if it is idiotically superficial and clueless. And if one keeps making those sorts of arguments, and constantly scrambles about after the fact trying to convince people that he didn't say what is already on the record, yeah, some folks are going to start wondering about trolling and dishonesty. So, you know—

... when there was NO Trolling and NO Lying.

—don't wonder why some folks who read your posts start wondering about dishonesty and trolling.

 

[adoucette]

Tiassa, you might disagree with me, but my posts are neither dishonest nor are in any way a form of Trolling.

(and of course, since you are a moderator you can violate the Forum rules and call me a Dishonest Troll and I'm certain nothing at all will be done about it.)

I'm often in a rush and don't have time to reread and edit and make sure that I footnote my responses.

Tough.

But then unlike some others, I don't go whining to vindictive moderators just because a post isn't written with the greatest of clarity either.




As to the actual issues.

No one expected the Republicans to en masse vote for a Democrat.

So the only issue was would the White Democrats and Independents support a Black man?

And YES, they OVERWHELMINGLY DID.

Which was my point.

NOTE: I didn't think I had to qualify that simple statement about who votes for Democratic presidents by putting White Democrats Overwhelmingly supported Obama, but I guess you want to take everything written so literal that maybe I'll have to start doing so in the future so as to avoid calls to the moderator saying that "If you take that statement Arthur wrote literally, then he's LYING, because the White Republicans didn't vote for Obama". And then maybe I'll start adding Footnotes in small type at the end of my posts as well. And maybe pigs will start flying.



Now you could argue that Dems are different than Republicans and the reverse case wouldn't be true, but the huge support for Cain shows that isn't so.

So yes, the results of the White Democrat's support of Obama and the White Republicans support of Cain certainly suggest that there is no Racial impediment to running and winning the highest office in the country.