What the heck is up with this?

Mystery S.C. nominee has pending felony charge

Alvin Greene has been on the phone all day. That's to be expected for the guy who just won South Carolina's Democratic Senate primary and is facing incumbent Republican Jim DeMint in November. But everyone calling Greene has just been trying to find out who the heck he is — and one thing reporters learned Tuesday is that a criminal complaint was sworn out against him last year for allegedly showing obscene photos to a South Carolina college student and suggesting they go to her dorm room.

Greene, a 32-year-old unemployed military veteran who lives with his parents, defeated Vic Rawl on Tuesday for the Democratic Senate nomination despite having run essentially no public campaign — no events, no signs, no debates, no website, no fundraising.

The result has baffled political observers, who had heavily favored Rawl — a former state legislator, attorney and prosecutor who had the edge inasmuch as he actually campaigned and tried to win. Many in South Carolina (which has grandly lived up to its reputation as a political circus this year) suspect that somewhere, a crafty GOP political operative is snickering.

Maybe people were thinking politics are so full of crooks what does one more matter?

It's South Carolina, people.

Spexxvet;662092 wrote:

It's South Carolina, people.

Too small for a republic, too big for an insane asylum.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) called for in South Carolina to investigate the circumstances that led to Alvin Greene winning the Democratic Senate primary in his state earlier this week.

"There were some real shenanigans going on in the South Carolina primary," Clyburn said during an appearance on the liberal Bill Press radio show. "I don't know if he was a Republican plant; he was someone's plant."

Despite having no real campaign or prior political support in the state, Greene won the primary with nearly 59 percent of the vote.

The South Carolina Democratic Party called on Greene on Wednesday to drop out of the race after The Associated Press reported that the candidate is facing felony charges for having allegedly displayed pornographic images to a college student.

Link

I'm still having trouble figuring out how this guy who ran virtually, if not literally, no campaign came out with 59% of the Democratic votes. Srsly??

As seen elsewhere:

There are two factors that I think played a part. First, Democratic voters had a choice between Rawls and not Rawls, and they chose not Rawls.
Second, Republicans voting in the Democratic primary. It may be dirty, but it's legal.

This is wild speculation on my part, and I have absolutely no proof, but this has fraud written all over it. Diebold?

Edit: Aw, Pie. why did you have to go and ruin a good conspiracy theory with a logical explanation?

Hey, don't let me stop you! :right:

Can the R's vote in a D primary there? Aside from the obvious switching of party to do just that. Wouldn't that have raised a red flag or two having tens of thousands of them? That would be really serious.

@glatt... maybe the D's planted him trying to blame it on the R's and thereby . . . .
Yeh there is something seriously wrong here - maybe the machines - I hadn't thought of that.

59 percent of what number?

Strategic voting is a bit of a perversion, I agree. I think it simply reflects a fundamental weakness in our two-party-winner-take-all de facto electoral system. This system is not in place everywhere. And there are a number of other systems, just as democratic, that offer a what I believe to be a better result, specifically proportional representation.

The theory I saw is that nobody knows Rawl either, and Greene was first on the ballot.

classicman;662191 wrote:

Can the R's vote in a D primary there? Aside from the obvious switching of party to do just that. Wouldn't that have raised a red flag or two having tens of thousands of them? That would be really serious.

@glatt... maybe the D's planted him trying to blame it on the R's and thereby . . . .
Yeh there is something seriously wrong here - maybe the machines - I hadn't thought of that.

Yes, S.C. has an 'Open Primary' where party affiliation is not required to vote for a candidate.

However

That would make sense if the two Democrats got more votes combined than there were registered Democrats in South Carolina, and if Demint vote fewer R votes than one normally expects in a primary.

Let's see.

http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/16117/27397/en/summary.ht...


~ 424,000 Republican ballots cast
~ 197,000 Democratic ballots cast
~ 2,600,000 total registered voters in S.C. --> turnout was 24%

Jim Demint and Susan Gaddy got almost 412,000 of the 424,000 Republican votes. That's about 97%.


Greene and Rawl got almost 170,000 of the 197,000 Democratic votes. That's about 86%.


If anything, Greene won by about 30,000 votes, which is almost the difference in number of Democratic votes cast for U.S. Senate and total Democratic votes.

There was no huge Republican push to put in an unknown Democrat. 97% of Republicans that voted, voted for a Republican in the U.S. Senate primary.

:confused: So... I withdraw my speculation. Go ahead, glatt!

BigV;662192 wrote:

I think it simply reflects a fundamental weakness in our two-party-winner-take-all de facto electoral system. This system is not in place everywhere. And there are a number of other systems, just as democratic, that offer a what I believe to be a better result, specifically proportional representation.

Agree.

Thirded. I believe these alternatives spread the money around more evenly as well reducing outside influence - maybe not?!

At least he will be in good company among the rest of the criminals ithat make up our Congress.

There are several states that allow the opposing party to vote in primaries. There were several instances where the Dems were importing voters from all over to tip Republican primaries toward weak candidates. If memory serves me, New England was one area that happened in the past. Business as usual.

spudcon;662276 wrote:

There are several states that allow the opposing party to vote in primaries. There were several instances where the Dems were importing voters from all over to tip Republican primaries toward weak candidates. If memory serves me, New England was one area that happened in the past. Business as usual.

Republicans crossed over in TX (hell, Limbaugh encouraged it), OH and other states in fairly significant numbers during the last presidential primary.

I'm not aware of what you suggest happened in New England. Im not aware of any New England state with an open primary.

Its not the "right thing" to do for anyone.

classicman;662170 wrote:

Link

I'm still having trouble figuring out how this guy who ran virtually, if not literally, no campaign came out with 59% of the Democratic votes. Srsly??

Tell us a lot about the Dems, doesn't it? hey don't put any thought into their votes. They are on automatic D.

BTW, love your sig line. Check out this link:

Products to buy from Arizona
http://www.examiner.com/x-35976-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Seven-Arizonabased-products-to-buy

And this is from the San Francisco Examiner. Only the nutters in SF are boycotting AZ.

skysidhe;661978 wrote:

Maybe people were thinking politics are so full of crooks what does one more matter?

Did you vote for me when I was running for Governor of California?

PORT CHESTER, N.Y. – Arthur Furano voted early — five days before Election Day. And he voted often, flipping the lever six times for his favorite candidate.

Furano cast multiple votes on the instructions of a federal judge and the U.S. Department of Justice as part of a new election system crafted to help boost Hispanic representation.

Voters in Port Chester, 25 miles northeast of New York City, are electing village trustees for the first time since the federal government alleged in 2006 that the existing election system was unfair. The election ends Tuesday and results are expected late Tuesday night.

Although the village of about 30,000 residents is nearly half Hispanic, no Latino had ever been elected to any of the six trustee seats, which until now were chosen in a conventional at-large election. Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.

Link
Whaaaaaaaaaaat?????? So because most of them CHOSE not to vote we have to change the system?

classicman;663294 wrote:

Link
Whaaaaaaaaaaat?????? So because most of them CHOSE not to vote we have to change the system?

Where did it say that most of "them" CHOSE not to vote?

Cumulative voting has been used as a remedy for Voting Rights Act violations in the past.

When a city/town that is majority white but may have one or more districts (or high population neighborhoods) that are non-white majority AND elects all of its council members on an at-large basis (rather than by district), it puts minorities at a distinct disadvantage and those minority voters can (and often will) be underrepresented on the governing body.

The judge choose the option of cumulative voting over changing to voting by district, which is what the DoJ evidently proposed.

added:
Not that you are reading this (right!), but for others to see the issue from another perspective.

I guess they are trying to hide the fact they are about to soak the taxpayers for another boondogle of a failed jobs stimulus since they have wastes so many billions to date.

Don't call it a stimulus package: Obama wants another $50 billion

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0613/Don-t-call-it-a-stimulus-package-Obama-wants-another-50-billion

classicman;663294 wrote:

Link
Whaaaaaaaaaaat?????? So because most of them CHOSE not to vote we have to change the system?

Why do you think the Dems want to make them all US citizens ASAP? They need to pad the elections. Remember nearly everything that happens or is said by the Dems between now and Nov is in an effort to stave off greater losses in the elections. Politics as usual.

TheMercenary;663304 wrote:

Why do you think the Dems want to make them all US citizens ASAP? They need to pad the elections. Remember nearly everything that happens or is said by the Dems between now and Nov is in an effort to stave off greater losses in the elections. Politics as usual.

This has nothing to do with illegal immigrants and making then citizens.

Using at-large elections to increase or maintain the influence of the White majority or conversely, decrease or discourage the representation of minorities in a community has been a long-standing violation of the Voting Rights Act under all administrations since it was enacted (well, except for Bush).

Redux;663321 wrote:

This has nothing to do with illegal immigrants and making then citizens.

Bullshit.

Where are all the conspiracy theorists hiding ...

Wasn't this the ideal "proof-of-principle" experiment for re-wiring the touch-screen voting machines with no paper trail ?

I'm not usually among the CT crowds, but it seems more credible than multitudes of Republicans agreeing ahead of time that they should cross their votes over to this particular candidate.

TheMercenary;663328 wrote:

Bullshit.

I didnt expect you to understand the Voting Rights Act and you didnt surprise me with your typical bullshit response.

Redux;663344 wrote:

I didnt expect you to understand the Voting Rights Act and you didnt surprise me with your typical bullshit response.

Well done Comrade! Your party will be proud!

TheMercenary;663349 wrote:

Well done Comrade! Your party will be proud!

Perhaps an education on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act will help...but I doubt it.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups identified in Section 4(f)(2) of the Act. Most of the cases arising under Section 2 since its enactment involved challenges to at-large election schemes, but the section's prohibition against discrimination in voting applies nationwide to any voting standard, practice, or procedure that results in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Section 2 is permanent and has no expiration date as do certain other provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

In 1980, the Supreme Court held that the section, as originally enacted by Congress in 1964, was a restatement of the protections afforded by the 15th amendment. Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980). Under that standard, a plaintiff had to prove that the standard, practice, or procedure was enacted or maintained, at least in part, by an invidious purpose.

In 1982, Congress extended certain provisions of the Act such as Section 5 that were set to expire, and added protections for voters who required assistance in voting. At the same time, it examined the history of litigation under Section 2 since 1965 and concluded that Section 2 should be amended to provide that a plaintiff could establish a violation of the section if the evidence established that, in the context of the "totality of the circumstance of the local electoral process," the standard, practice, or procedure being challenged had the result of denying a racial or language minority an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/sec_2/about_sec2.php

Are you one of those extremists who think we shouldnt have a voting rights act?

No. I am a common man who can point out to the rest of the voters that you are a Demoncratic Mouthpiece who carries water for the Obama Admin and the party that is going to bankrupt this nation. Your party lies preced you Comrad.

TheMercenary;663358 wrote:

No. I am a common man who can point out to the rest of the voters that you are a Demoncratic Mouthpiece who carries water for the Obama Admin and the party that is going to bankrupt this nation. Your party lies preced you Comrad.

From classic's link:

Federal Judge Stephen Robinson said that violated the Voting Rights Act, and he approved a remedy suggested by village officials: a system called cumulative voting, in which residents get six votes each to apportion as they wish among the candidates. He rejected a government proposal to break the village into six districts, including one that took in heavily Hispanic areas.

Given that the settlement was imposed/approved by Judge Stephen Robinson, a Bush appointee to the bench (he rejected the remedy proposed by the DoJ of voting by district).....perhaps you can explain how it was all an Obama/Democratic plot.

Every time you open your mouth, you look more foolish....my advice, stick to eating your :corn:

TheMercenary;663304 wrote:

Why do you think the Dems want to make them all US citizens ASAP?

They already are citizens, aren't they?
I find it odd that one group gets 6 votes each and the other only gets one. Unless I read it wrong and all the voters got 6 votes.

classicman;663404 wrote:

They already are citizens, aren't they?
I find it odd that one group gets 6 votes each and the other only gets one. Unless I read it wrong and all the voters got 6 votes.

Of course you read it wrong...you rushed to judgment. Every citizen gets 6 votes and Merc's suggestion that it is to make them citizens ASAP is ludicrous.

But you're not reading this :lol: ...or my explanation of how it (at-large elections) is a fairly common Voting Rights Act issue and an issue of law despite Merc's attempt to make it a partisan political issue by somehow turning a Republican-appointed judge's settlement into a nefarious plot by Democrats.

added:
I think elections by district would have been better, with a far greater likelihood that an Hispanic would be elected to the town council, which is long over-due considering that the town is almost half Hispanic and the council has been all White for ever.

Your making the assumption the white councilmen don't vote what's best for the entire town and not just for whites.

xoxoxoBruce;663426 wrote:

Your making the assumption the white councilmen don't vote what's best for the entire town and not just for whites.

No...I'm not. I'm just offering my understanding of the case.

The judge made the decision that it was a violation of the Voting Rights Act, based on a pattern over time that the at-large process has not provided for a "fair" opportunity for minority representation on the town council...ever....in a town that is nearly half minority (it would not be an issue if the minority population was very small).

Added
And, I still prefer district elections (or a combination of mostly district and one/two at large) over all at-large elections at the local level. IMO, they are more representative, not just of race, but neighborhood issues, fair distribution/allocation of resources, etc.

We're going through a version of this right now. Our county board members are elected at large for the entire county. The county is made up of roughly 75% Democrats and 25% Republicans. So the county board slots have always been filed by Democrats. It's basically a one party system here in Arlington.

There's a movement now to switch over to a district election system, pushed by the Republicans so they can get some representation on the board.

glatt;663491 wrote:

We're going through a version of this right now. Our county board members are elected at large for the entire county. The county is made up of roughly 75% Democrats and 25% Republicans. So the county board slots have always been filed by Democrats. It's basically a one party system here in Arlington.

There's a movement now to switch over to a district election system, pushed by the Republicans so they can get some representation on the board.

DC had a similar issue with the city being 85% Democrat.

We have districts and at-large, with two at-large elected every two years; the catch being they cant be from the same party, so a Republican always gets one at-large seat on the Council.

That's stupid, people should be able to elect who they want.

xoxoxoBruce;663644 wrote:

That's stupid, people should be able to elect who they want.

As it relates to political affiliation, I agree with you...and it is not covered by the Voting Rights Act.

As to race, it falls under civil rights and IMO, the Voting Rights Act has played a significant role in enabling minorities to achieve elected political office....and that is what this case is all about.

Enabling minorities to achieve elected political office? Big fucking deal. That's like giving losers an extra 500 points on their SAT scores.

So now what are they going to do once they're in office, take care of their own, or do what's right for the whole community? If they're going to do what's right for the whole community, what difference does it make who wins?

Politicians should be elected for their record, or promises in the beginning, then bounced if they fuck up... no matter what color or party. This sounds like one of those fucking esteem boosting programs.

I get it. You dont like the Voting Rights Act....or at least, Section 2 of the Act.

I disagree...and so has every President/Congress since its enactment/extension.

IMO, having equal access to the political process is not just the right to vote, but the right to serve in elected office and when barriers exist to make that possibility less than fair, the remedy (not a guarantee) is appropriate.

I disagree...and so has every President/Congress since its enactment/extension.

That doesn't make it right, just politically correct.

xoxoxoBruce;663755 wrote:

That doesn't make it right, just politically correct.

Perhaps I didnt explain it well or perhaps it wont make a difference.

Many decisions by local governing bodies are not always about what is best for the city/town as a whole. Often, it is about prioritizing and/or responding to the needs of communities or neighborhoods within the city/town.

If a community/neighborhood is not represented on the governing body, preferablly by someone from within that community/neighborhood and particularly when that community/neighborhood is primarily a minority community...there is a far greater likelihood that the community/neighborhood will not be served as well as those that are represented directly on the governing body.

It is not always political correctness, but fairness!

xoxoxoBruce;663753 wrote:

So now what are they going to do once they're in office, take care of their own, or do what's right for the whole community? If they're going to do what's right for the whole community, what difference does it make who wins?

Politicians should be elected for their record, or promises in the beginning, then bounced if they fuck up... no matter what color or party. This sounds like one of those fucking esteem boosting programs.

What if the "majority" office holder only takes care of their own? They'll never be bounced because they have the backing of the majority. Someone who consistently fucks the minority can stay in office forever, regardless of whether they they do what's right for the whole community.

xoxoxoBruce;663753 wrote:

So now what are they going to do once they're in office, take care of their own, or do what's right for the whole community? If they're going to do what's right for the whole community, what difference does it make who wins?

Politicians should be elected for their record, or promises in the beginning, then bounced if they fuck up... no matter what color or party. This sounds like one of those fucking esteem boosting programs.

:thumb:

Redux;663769 wrote:

If a community/neighborhood is not represented on the governing body, preferablly by someone from within that community/neighborhood and particularly when that community/neighborhood is primarily a minority community...there is a far greater likelihood that the community/neighborhood will not be served as well as those that are represented directly on the governing body.

It is not always political correctness, but fairness!

Special treatment for minorities is not fairness, no one should get special treatment.

Spexxvet;663777 wrote:

What if the "majority" office holder only takes care of their own? They'll never be bounced because they have the backing of the majority. Someone who consistently fucks the minority can stay in office forever, regardless of whether they they do what's right for the whole community.

So how is puting 1 or 2 minorities on a council of 6, 9, or a dozen going to change that?

xoxoxoBruce;664073 wrote:

Special treatment for minorities is not fairness, no one should get special treatment.

I'll give you a couple of examples.

A city/town council has decided to undertake a major capital improvement project to fix up the city parks...but over a 3 year period. There is one "central" park that should be first on the list, but there is no compelling citywide reason to prioritize the other neighborhood parks. The six council members, all White and all living in the predominantly White neighborhoods of the city. There is no one on the council who lives in the predominantly Hispanic neighborhood. Which neighborhood park is most likely to be last on the list?

A city has an opportunity to receive a community development grant from the state. There is no one project that the council can come up that will benefit the entire city, but each of the council members has a project in his/her neighborhood that they think should be funded. Who is there to promote the project for the Hispanic neighborhood.

It is not special treatment...it is having an equal voice on the council and the opportunity to be represented by someone from within the community.

xoxoxoBruce;664074 wrote:

So how is puting 1 or 2 minorities on a council of 6, 9, or a dozen going to change that?

The change? Having someone from within the Hispanic community on the council who might better understand the issues of the community and, at the very least, providing a voice on the council.

Redux;664103 wrote:

Which neighborhood park is most likely to be last on the list?

Sure, because every majority candidate feels those minorities must be oppressed, we'll fix up their park with broken glass and infected needles. :rolleyes:

If the voting is for several candidates at large, and the minority community wants one of there own, (whether it's a vote for one, or vote for say, 3 of 6), all they have to do is get off their ass and vote for him. 20, 30 or 40% turnout shows they really don't want to make an effort, they want it handed to them by do-gooders making fucked up laws.

xoxoxoBruce;664219 wrote:

Sure, because every majority candidate feels those minorities must be oppressed, we'll fix up their park with broken glass and infected needles. :rolleyes:

If the voting is for several candidates at large, and the minority community wants one of there own, (whether it's a vote for one, or vote for say, 3 of 6), all they have to do is get off their ass and vote for him. 20, 30 or 40% turnout shows they really don't want to make an effort, they want it handed to them by do-gooders making fucked up laws.

Broken glass and infected needles...come on, dude.

My point was that on issues like this, which are common at the local level and have no real citywide impact, a White council member (or any council member) is more likely to serve his closest constituents first.. the ones they know voted for him.

As to at-large voting, that is not how it works.

I dont know the specifics of the town in question, but if there is a six member council, probably elected in overlapping terms...say three at a time for two years...each citizens votes once, but votes for three people.

Increasing the percentage turn-out of the minority voters does not change the odds against their ever achieving representation if all (or most) of the majority voters continue to vote on color (or neighborhood) lines.

added afterthought:
cumulative voting does increase the chances for a minority to get elected....just not as much as changing to a sytem of voting by district.

xoxoxoBruce;664074 wrote:

So how is puting 1 or 2 minorities on a council of 6, 9, or a dozen going to change that?

God Dammed Right.

Redux;664229 wrote:

Increasing the percentage turn-out of the minority voters does not change the odds against their ever achieving representation if all (or most) of the majority voters continue to vote on color (or neighborhood) lines.

What a load of bull shit. Statistics consistently show that minority voters are overwhelmingly Demoncratic. Pedal your propaganda elsewhere.

TheMercenary;664233 wrote:

What a load of bull shit. Statistics consitantly show that minority voters are overwhelmingly Demoncratic.

Most local elections are non-partisan...and putting that aside, it still doesnt address the issue of having representation on the governing board from within one's own community.

Redux;664234 wrote:

Most local elections are non-partisan...and putting aside, it still doesnt address the issue of having representation on the governing board from one's own community.

Most people don't turn out for local election cycles. On a national level is where Obama and the Demoncrats will gain votes by giving illegals citizenship status and they know it.

In the imortal words of Rham It Through Emanuel, never let a good crisis go to waste.

I'll be happy to discuss it further with Bruce if he would like.

Redux;664234 wrote:

Most local elections are non-partisan...and putting that aside, it still doesnt address the issue of having representation on the governing board from within one's own community.

That's true, Philly is Democrat and elections are settled in the primary. My burb is Republican and the same is true, in fact you'll find the same people running for things like the school board, on both tickets.

To bring the discussion full circle, a Hispanic was elected to the council in Port Chester last week, using the court-sanctioned cumulative voting system.

It did not provide additional rights to Hispanics, it was not undemocratic. It corrected a deficiency in the voting system that previously benefited the majority at the expense of the minority.

OK, I misunderstood how this works. They give everybody 6 votes, not just some people. So they went from one man, one vote, to one man, six votes.

Arthur Furano, an 80-year-old lifelong resident of Port Chester, voted Thursday and gave all six of his votes to one candidate.
"That was very strange," he said. "I'm not sure I liked it. All my life, I've heard, 'one man, one vote.'"
His wife, Gloria Furano, gave one vote each to six candidates.

I still don't like it, but I'm less incensed.
The hispanics make up nearly half the 30,000 population, and the top 6 of 13 candidates get elected. Sounds to me like they never elected one before because they weren't trying very fucking hard. I also suspect they elected one of the two running, because of...

The village held 12 forums — six each in English and Spanish — to let voters know about the new system and to practice voting. It also produced bright yellow T-shirts, tote bags and lawn signs declaring "Your voice, your vote, your village," all part of the education program mandated in the government agreement. Announcements were made on cable TV in each language and reminders were sent home in schoolkids' backpacks.

All the materials had to be approved in advance, in English and Spanish versions, by the Department of Justice.

Aaron Conetta said the voter education effort was so thorough he found voting easier than usual.

link

xoxoxoBruce;665283 wrote:

OK, I misunderstood how this works. They give everybody 6 votes, not just some people. So they went from one man, one vote, to one man, six votes.


I still don't like it, but I'm less incensed.
The hispanics make up nearly half the 30,000 population, and the top 6 of 13 candidates get elected. Sounds to me like they never elected one before because they weren't trying very fucking hard. I also suspect they elected one of the two running, because of...

link

I think you still misunderstand.

Previously, all voters cast as many votes as there were seats up for election (2 or 3), but voters could only give one vote to each candidate.....

http://portchestervotes.com/

Thus, even if Hispanic turnout was the same percentage ("trying just as hard") as White turnout, the likelihood of a Hispanic winning one of the seats was very low.

Under the new system, all 6 seats were up for election at the same time and voters could cast multiple votes (up to 6) for one candidate, so if Hispanics rallied around one candidate, the likelihood of election increased...and that is what happened.

I still don't like it, and disagree they couldn't elect one of there own without rigging the election.
So now the council votes 5 to 1, what are the feds going to do next, go drag them to the polls, appoint hispanics?

xoxoxoBruce;665585 wrote:

I still don't like it, and disagree they couldn't elect one of there own without rigging the election.
So now the council votes 5 to 1, what are the feds going to do next, go drag them to the polls, appoint hispanics?

Ohhhhh like that discrimination enterprise known as Affirmative Action?

xoxoxoBruce;665585 wrote:

I still don't like it, and disagree they couldn't elect one of there own without rigging the election.
So now the council votes 5 to 1, what are the feds going to do next, go drag them to the polls, appoint hispanics?

The Bush DoJ that initiated the action, and the Bush appointed judge who approved the settlement, neither of which were big advocates of government intervention (or affirmative action), thought it was an appropriate remedy.

I agree with them. I get it that others dont like it.

TheMercenary;665587 wrote:

Ohhhhh like that discrimination enterprise known as Affirmative Action?

Quotas may be discriminatory....Affirmative Action is not, by any stretch of the law.

Redux;665603 wrote:

Quotas may be discriminatory....Affirmative Action is not, by any stretch of the law.

Affirmative Action is one of the most discriminatory policies every enacted. It should be outlawed. I wonder what the Supreme Court thinks about it? And in 50 years will you still support it?

TheMercenary;665613 wrote:

Affirmative Action is one of the most discriminatory policies every enacted. It should be outlawed. I wonder what the Supreme Court thinks about it? And in 50 years will you still support it?

The Supreme Court has probably upheld more Affirmative Action cases than it has rejected...the rejections being of those that crossed the line on quotas.

When institutional racism or racial preference favoring the majority, either by design or default, is eliminated....then Affirmative Action and remedies like this one in Port Chester (where White voting blocks have, in effect, prevented Hispanic representation on the town council) will no longer be needed.

50 years? I hope it less than that.

At the same time, IMO, some Affirmative Action programs should never end.

Redux;665603 wrote:

Quotas may be discriminatory....Affirmative Action is not, by any stretch . . .

It constitutes synthetic prejudice, even by the making of law to legalize prejudices. It is not more attractive than the homemade variety -- to those of us blessed with principle.

It should receive little to no defense.

The concept of "institutional racism" is devoutly believed in by -- certain people. It is promulgated by hustlers. This fact taints it.

People of principle neither practice nor credit "institutional racism." The hustlers cannot admit this without joining the swollen ranks of the unemployed. Their Jesse Jackson-style shakedowns would quit working as the leaves from the money-tree stop falling.

Urbane Guerrilla;667035 wrote:

It constitutes synthetic prejudice, even by the making of law to legalize prejudices. It is not more attractive than the homemade variety -- to those of us blessed with principle.

It should receive little to no defense.

The concept of "institutional racism" is devoutly believed in by -- certain people. It is promulgated by hustlers. This fact taints it.

People of principle neither practice nor credit "institutional racism." The hustlers cannot admit this without joining the swollen ranks of the unemployed. Their Jesse Jackson-style shakedowns would quit working as the leaves from the money-tree stop falling.

I would agree that institutional racism has all but been eliminated, due in part to federal anti-discrimation legislation, administrative remedies, and effective AA programs. However, inadvertant or unintended discrimination still exists in the workplace and in various ways in communities across the country, as was evident in Port Chester, where the White majority effectively kept minorities off the town council.

The Voting Right Act provides reasonable remedies that give no additional rights to minorities or take any rights away from the White majority.

And just for the record, all affirmative action is NOT race based.

IMO, the most successful AA program has been the Title 9 program to end gender discrimination in higher education athletics.

High school girls now have reasonable (not equal) acess to athletic scholarships and womens college athletic programs now have more (not equal) funding.

As a result, some guys suffered...high school boys missed out on scholarships... and minor mens sports programs experienced program cuts.

Shall we return to the good ole days and send girls back to home ec class instead of the athletic playing field?

I am thankful that you dont represent the majority. The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and other anti-discrimation legislation PROTECTS minorities and women from narrow-minded, backward-looking folks like you.

bwahahahha - that is too funny!

Did you see this guy give his first speech the other week? Holy crap, the SC electorate can't elect this guy.... then again.