Will Trump win again???

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Why should they?


You have to be careful with those statistics.

Looking at the article from the Atlantic, whites and blacks are moved out of poverty at almost identical rates (43.0% for blacks, 43.9% for whites based on the chart about halfway down).

As for the Quartz article, its not a surprise when you consider the demographics of the country. White people make up around 75% of the country so making up a plurality of SNAP recipients isn't a surprise.
 
As for the Quartz article, its not a surprise when you consider the demographics of the country. White people make up around 75% of the country so making up a plurality of SNAP recipients isn't a surprise.
State breakdown is still interesting nonetheless. Lot of red states at the top. Unlike the homelessness you see in Cali as a result of incredible wealth creation in SV, I think a lot of this is just pure poverty where red states rank the highest, per capita.

 
You have to be careful with those statistics.

Looking at the article from the Atlantic, whites and blacks are moved out of poverty at almost identical rates (43.0% for blacks, 43.9% for whites based on the chart about halfway down).

As for the Quartz article, its not a surprise when you consider the demographics of the country. White people make up around 75% of the country so making up a plurality of SNAP recipients isn't a surprise.
Stop defending the oppressors!
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I find it profoundly ironic, and well, mildly hilarious that folks who are so against immigration and really think immigrants are the problem and are taking away their so-call way of life and stand of living, also believe, that they are lazy, uneducated, without appreciable skills or even have a functional way to communicate. Because if that is the case, these lazy, uneducated, without skills folks, are then basically out working you, out hustling you, and yes, out thinking you. And within a course of single generation will change the entire trajectory of their place in society and economic fortunes—the truth is , it’s embarrassing for most of fly-over America.

By way of specific example, there is an area of Eastern Washington called tri-cities, one of the cities there is called Pasco and it’s almost 2/3 Latino and has one of the fastest growing Latino populations in the nation. Over the last years, I have been in the area for work, 2-3 times a year, and often pass by a corner where folks can get picked up for day labor jobs, the going rate is 100-150 cash (at least the sign says so). So, to make no mistake about it, no is going to get rich on $100-150 a day, but you can certainly pay some bills and take care of essentials. I must have past this place at least 50-60 times over the years, and you know who I have never seen there—a white person, not once, not ever—telling.

I just love how all the layers over your bias are peeling back.

Oh, and by the way: I still don't believe you.
 
I just love how all the layers over your bias are peeling back.

Oh, and by the way: I still don't believe you.
But yet you won’t meet me. Sounds like someone that is at once scared of the boogeyman and also denies his existence. But thanks for that dubious belief and denial, so very Protestant of you....
 
I just love how all the layers over your bias are peeling back.

Oh, and by the way: I still don't believe you.
Myth #1: Immigrants take more from the U.S. government than they contribute

Fact: Immigrants contribute more in tax revenue than they take in government benefits

A 2017 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found immigration “has an overall positive impact on the long-run economic growth in the U.S.”

How that breaks down is important.



First-generation immigrants cost the government more than native-born Americans, according to the report — about $1,600 per person annually. But second generation immigrants are “among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S.,” the report found. They contribute about $1,700 per person per year. All other native-born Americans, including third generation immigrants, contribute $1,300 per year on average.

The study suggests they likely have a more positive effect than their legal counterparts because they are, on average, younger and do not qualify for public benefits.

It’s also important to note that less-educated immigrants tend to work more than people with the same level of education born in the U.S. About half of all U.S.-born Americans with no high school diploma work, compared to about 70 percent of immigrants with the same education level, Giovanni Peri, an economics professor at the University of California, Davis, said in a recent interview with PBS NewsHour.

eneral, more people working means more taxes — and that’s true overall with undocumented immigrants as well. Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy.

Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes.
Immigrants are also less likely to take public benefits than the native-born population for two reasons.

First, to receive most public benefits under the social safety net, immigrants must be lawful permanent residents for at least five years.

There are approximately 9 million immigrants that fit that definition in the U.S. Of those, many would not qualify for welfare or other programs because their incomes are too high.

“While it is really important to ensure that immigrants and their children have access to the safety net, there are already a lot of eligibility barriers in place,” said Hamutal Bernstein, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute.

It’s curious you don’t cite or rely on two R leaning institutions, the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable...I suspect you are a free market, supply side capitalist until the wrong color of people come to the table huh?
 
Myth #1: Immigrants take more from the U.S. government than they contribute

Fact: Immigrants contribute more in tax revenue than they take in government benefits

A 2017 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found immigration “has an overall positive impact on the long-run economic growth in the U.S.”

How that breaks down is important.



First-generation immigrants cost the government more than native-born Americans, according to the report — about $1,600 per person annually. But second generation immigrants are “among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S.,” the report found. They contribute about $1,700 per person per year. All other native-born Americans, including third generation immigrants, contribute $1,300 per year on average.

The study suggests they likely have a more positive effect than their legal counterparts because they are, on average, younger and do not qualify for public benefits.

It’s also important to note that less-educated immigrants tend to work more than people with the same level of education born in the U.S. About half of all U.S.-born Americans with no high school diploma work, compared to about 70 percent of immigrants with the same education level, Giovanni Peri, an economics professor at the University of California, Davis, said in a recent interview with PBS NewsHour.

eneral, more people working means more taxes — and that’s true overall with undocumented immigrants as well. Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy.

Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes.
Immigrants are also less likely to take public benefits than the native-born population for two reasons.

First, to receive most public benefits under the social safety net, immigrants must be lawful permanent residents for at least five years.

There are approximately 9 million immigrants that fit that definition in the U.S. Of those, many would not qualify for welfare or other programs because their incomes are too high.

“While it is really important to ensure that immigrants and their children have access to the safety net, there are already a lot of eligibility barriers in place,” said Hamutal Bernstein, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute.

It’s curious you don’t cite or rely on two R leaning institutions, the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable...I suspect you are a free market, supply side capitalist until the wrong color of people come to the table huh?
You shouldn’t assume people’s motivations for their opinions, because you could very well be wrong.
I’m very opposed to illegal immigration and not for any reasons you mentioned.
 
You shouldn’t assume people’s motivations for their opinions, because you could very well be wrong.
I’m very opposed to illegal immigration and not for any reasons you mentioned.
I don’t assume anything, except for the presentation of facts, in which, people can then consider,Mormont,as to forming their own opinions....

I will say this, my wife and D, both physicians, both graduated from top tier medical schools, (Hopkins and UCSF), and she is a combination of Mexican and Native American on fathers side, her mom from southern Illinois. Her relatives there all white, have said on several difference occasions, that they both got into medical school because they were recruited minorities and females—-hmmmn. Despite my wife receiving a merit scholarship and having never tested below 99 percent on any test I’ve ever seen her take (her MCAT today would have come to about 524) —same as my daughter, 34 ACT out of high school, and an Ivy undergrad. These same people never graduated from college, but yet they felt comfortable enough to comment on something they literally have no background or expertise in....
 
I don’t assume anything, except for the presentation of facts, in which, people can then consider,Mormont,as to forming their own opinions....

I will say this, my wife and D, both physicians, both graduated from top tier medical schools, (Hopkins and UCSF), and she is a combination of Mexican and Native American on fathers side, her mom from southern Illinois. Her relatives there all white, have said on several difference occasions, that they both got into medical school because they were recruited minorities and females—-hmmmn. Despite my wife receiving a merit scholarship and having never tested below 99 percent on any test I’ve ever seen her take (her MCAT today would have come to about 524) —same as my daughter, 34 ACT out of high school, and an Ivy undergrad. These same people never graduated from college, but yet they felt comfortable enough to comment on something they literally have no background or expertise in....

you can’t support racist preferential treatment then complain that people think you benefit from it. Maybe she benefited and maybe she didn’t but it’s put into question, not by racist white people, but by racist policies that make it plausible or likely that she benefited from discrimination in her favor.
If you look at Ivy League admissions for non-legacy white or Asian students with 34 ACTs, they are dramatically lower than for preferred minorities.
so should we support open borders to let in tons of people who will have millions of kids that will get racist preferential treatment over our kids? That matters a lot more than $300 tax revenue.
 
you can’t support racist preferential treatment then complain that people think you benefit from it. Maybe she benefited and maybe she didn’t but it’s put into question, not by racist white people, but by racist policies that make it plausible or likely that she benefited from discrimination in her favor.
If you look at Ivy League admissions for non-legacy white or Asian students with 34 ACTs, they are dramatically lower than for preferred minorities.
so should we support open borders to let in tons of people who will have millions of kids that will get racist preferential treatment over our kids? That matters a lot more than $300 tax revenue.
So, where did you come from and when? Cause all we are basically arguing is who got here first....and what the hell is “our kids”. They are kids, period. And define from both a moral precept and legally why these are racists policies?
 
So, where did you come from and when? Cause all we are basically arguing is who got here first....and what the hell is “our kids”. They are kids, period. And define from both a moral precept and legally why these are racists policies?
“Our kids” are all kids that are not preferred minorities. I don’t need to define racism for you.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
You
You have submitted no facts, not one, merely pithy and pedantic platitudes ...
He was pointing out your hypocrisy. And he's right about his facts.

Affirmative action is one of the worst type of discriminations I have ever seen, because it hurts everybody, even those it's supposed to help (as you have seen first hand).

And please stop mixing legal and illegal immigration. Legal immigrants have done a ton of good things for this country (just see the list of Nobels). I am not so sure about the illegals, because it's much harder to measure their contribution, plus they are generally a much less educated/skilled group (almost half don't have even a high school diploma).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The facts about racist admissions are readily available. Google it unless you don’t want to know.
Except for a federal appellate court said it was NOT racist. So, I take it you are one of those conservatives that believes in the rule of law, except when they disagree. What I have just submitted is a fact, confirmed by a federal court, what you submit is opinion—period—huge difference.
 
You shouldn’t assume people’s motivations for their opinions, because you could very well be wrong.
I’m very opposed to illegal immigration and not for any reasons you mentioned.
Most aren't. The common diatribe against illegals is the same bs the right spouted about "welfare Queens" a couple decades ago.


Personally I'll take some illegals trying to do jobs no one else will do here over the right wingers committing mass shootings at schools, concerts and Walmarts

 
He was pointing out your hypocrisy. And he's right about his facts.

Affirmative action is one of the worst type of discriminations I have ever seen, because it hurts everybody, even those it's supposed to help (as you have seen first hand).

And please stop mixing legal and illegal immigration. Legal immigrants have done a ton of good things for this country (just see the list of Nobels). I am not so sure about the illegals, because it's much harder to measure their contribution, plus they are generally a much less educated/skilled group.
Yet here we are....


Theoretically Harvard could probably fill its class with Asians without a single white, black or Hispanic based on test scores and GPAs. Don't think that would be good for society or Harvard
 
Yet here we are....


Theoretically Harvard could probably fill its class with Asians without a single white, black or Hispanic based on test scores and GPAs. Don't think that would be good for society or Harvard
Thank you for that information. All that proves is that affirmative action is legal discrimination.
“The use of race benefits certain racial and ethnic groups that would otherwise be underrepresented at Harvard and is therefore neither an illegitimate use of race or reflective of racial prejudice,” Burroughs wrote.

Or, to be Orwellian: racial prejudice is not racial prejudice, if the law says so.
To combat the statistically heavy case presented by two experts from Students for Fair Admissions, eight black, Latino, and Asian-American Harvard students and alumni took the stand to share their personal stories of making it to Harvard and the benefits of using race in admissions. Students for Fair Admissions did not call any students or present any cases of applicants who were specifically disadvantaged by Harvard’s admissions process.
AKA the sob stories won against scientific analysis. AKA Harvard had better lawyers. Typical American legal theatricals.
There was no jury. Burroughs, a nominee of President Barack Obama, joined the federal bench in 2014 soon after the lawsuit was filed.
I don't think there are many (if any) civilized countries that consider race for college admission. Personally, I am all for pure meritocracy, with financial support for the poor kids. Equality of opportunity, whatever the outcomes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Except for a federal appellate court said it was NOT racist. So, I take it you are one of those conservatives that believes in the rule of law, except when they disagree. What I have just submitted is a fact, confirmed by a federal court, what you submit is opinion—period—huge difference.
Thank Gods nobody has sued yet about the Earth being flat, because some intellectually lazy judge may actually affirm that, especially if there is too much math involved to prove the opposite.
 
there are no cases saying that affirmative action isn’t racist. the courts either strike down the racist admissions policy or say that it’s okay to be kind of racist in order to have a class that has more preferred minorities. having the court say that the policy isn’t illegal is not the same as saying it isn’t racist. It is by definition racist to consider race in any way to any degree in admissions. the court doesn’t care, but that doesn’t make it right.
Show me a single sentence -just once - where the court says “it’s kind of racist”. You are co-opting the specific language of the court and just making up your own interpretation. By way of specific example, I went to YLS and know the admission policy very well—and it is far from racist by stretch. Again, I submit facts you submit a personal opinion —huge difference.
 
Could say it is equally racist to base admission on an exam where Asians overwhelmingly beat everyone else
Really? Maybe we should also ban Africans from running competitions (or sports in general), or Simone Biles from gymnastics. 😛
 
Thank Gods nobody has sued yet about the Earth being flat, because some intellectually lazy judge may actually affirm that, especially if there is too much math involved to prove the opposite.
So I take it you are also the kind of conservative that believes in the rule of law, but only when the results are favorable to your political inclinations - how convenient?
So to keep you productive and up to date - why don’t you peruse this-Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. ___ (2016) (commonly referred to as Fisher II)[1][2][3][4] is a United States Supreme Court case which held that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit correctly found that the University of Texas at Austin's undergraduate admissions policy survived strict scrutiny, in accordance with Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), which ruled that strict scrutiny should be applied to determine the constitutionality of the University's race-sensitive admissions policy
 
Bingo! Here's affirmative action, AKA legal racial discrimination, for anybody who can read:
"Even if there is an unwarranted disparity in the personal ratings, the Court is unable to identify any individual applicant whose admissions decision was affected and finds that the disparity in the personal ratings did not burden Asian American applicants significantly more than Harvard’s race-conscious policies burdened white applicants,” the judgment reads.

“Race conscious admissions will always penalize to some extent the groups that are not being advantaged by the process, but this is justified by the compelling interest in diversity and all the benefits that flow from a diverse college population,” she wrote.

I love how the euphemism, "race conscious admissions". I guess not admitting the Jews before was also "race conscious".
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Could say it is equally racist to base admission on an exam where Asians overwhelmingly beat everyone else
Maybe they should admit more Asians.

Maybe they consider multiple non-racist factors in their admissions decisions.

Maybe the white averages are lowered by legacy admissions that most of us don’t benefit from.

(To me legacy preference is worse than affirmative action.)
 
So taking a test = who should get into Harvard? You may think so. Harvard disagrees
They are free to disagree. And we are free to call them racists, like the entire AA movement. If all those antidiscriminatory criteria in the Civil Rights Act cannot be considered for hiring a person (and many other situations), they shouldn't be legal for college admissions either.

One thing is sure: the world is not a meritocracy, so none of this should be surprising.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bingo! Here's affirmative action, AKA legal racial discrimination, for anybody who can read:


I love how the euphemism, "race conscious admissions". I guess not admitting the Jews before was also "race conscious".
You lose the legal nuance of the court as it clearly states that while some deference can be given to race it’s not in and of itself racist in totality to the entire admissions process...
 
Could say it is equally racist to base admission on an exam where Asians overwhelmingly beat everyone else

Is it possible for 1 group to beat another because they worked harder and excelled more?

I believe AA will go down in history as racist. Plenty of racist laws on the books in the past and this will just be one more example we look back on 50 years in the future. Definitely going on to the Supreme Court.

I just don’t understand the left logic in arguing so vociferously against discrimination for some individuals , yet suspend that logic for others....
 
Sounds like some of you folks got the big R from the Ivies....lol.
Or maybe we didn’t apply despite having scores in the top 1% because we couldn’t afford to go there and Ivies don’t offer scholarships.
 
Is it possible for 1 group to beat another because they worked harder and excelled more?

I believe AA will go down in history as racist. Plenty of racist laws on the books in the past and this will just be one more example we look back on 50 years in the future. Definitely going on to the Supreme Court.

I just don’t understand the left logic in arguing so vociferously against discrimination for some individuals , yet suspend that logic for others....
Don't see the point of making everything based on a single test. Medical school admissions aren't just based on an MCAT... It isn't racist to take multiple factors including race and personal circumstances into account.

You think all AMG doctors should be Indian and Chinese males who do well on MCATs?
 
Don't see the point of making everything based on a single test. Medical school admissions aren't just based on an MCAT... It isn't racist to take multiple factors including race and personal circumstances into account.

You think all AMG doctors should be Indian and Chinese males who do well on MCATs?

They should arguably take multiple factors into account but race shouldn’t be one of them. Racism is wrong, right?
 
Is it possible for 1 group to beat another because they worked harder and excelled more?

I believe AA will go down in history as racist. Plenty of racist laws on the books in the past and this will just be one more example we look back on 50 years in the future. Definitely going on to the Supreme Court.

I just don’t understand the left logic in arguing so vociferously against discrimination for some individuals , yet suspend that logic for others....
The left is not meritocratic because they argue that the right will always win, because they have more money for test prep. Which is bull.

I come from a meritocratic test-oriented country like South Korea. My medical school was full of poorer kids who had busted their arses to get in. My best friend from medical school was first in his year, with almost perfect grades, first to go to college in his family. IQ and/or hard work = success.
 
Or maybe we didn’t apply despite having scores in the top 1% because we couldn’t afford to go there and Ivies don’t offer scholarships.
Again you speak from plain ignorance. So at the risk of schooling you again, at 125k annual family income and below, at HYP and Stanford as well, you would pay nothing and I mean nothing- including tuition, room and board, two RT tickets home every year, a new computer and even a semester away. Furthermore, it is all grants as their are NO student loans as part of the FA package. Finally almost 60 percent of every class received substantial aid.
Again, facts not pithy platitudes...
 
Is it racist to have a medical school class with demographics similar to the country as a whole?

As it stands now, Asian males are far out of proportion in medicine as compared to their percentage in society as a whole
Yes. Absolutely.

It's like saying that all men should give birth because all women do. It's like saying that gays should like the opposite sex, because that's what heterosexuals do. It assumes that all groups are identical, which they are not. It's Science 101, just based on the theory of evolution (everybody has evolved differently, over millions of years).
 
And you think a great MCAT score = a great doctor without a shred of proof to back it up.

I guess Hispanic women will just have to suck it up and see Chinese and Indian male obgyns huh?
A great MCAT score is a beginning. It should be definitely more suggestive of future performance than the color of one's skin.

Hispanic women should motivate their kids better to study well-enough to become obgyns.

Americans want it both ways: laugh at the Asian tiger mothers, then discriminate against their kids when that education WORKS.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
A great MCAT score is a beginning. It should be definitely more suggestive of future performance than the color of one's skin.

Hispanic women should motivate their kids better to study well-enough to become obgyns.
Pretty sure a Hispanic woman might prefer to see another female, maybe even a Hispanic one, with an mcat of 32 over an Indian male with an mcat of 44.

Thankfully most admissions committees have enough sense to figure that out
 
Pretty sure a Hispanic woman might prefer to see another female, maybe even a Hispanic one, with an mcat of 32 over an Indian male with an mcat of 44.

Thankfully most admissions committees have enough sense to figure that out
I am sure a true meritocracy would produce more than enough female obgyns. I can't help with the Hispanic part; I don't choose my doctors based on race/ethnicity, but on competence. That's what non-racist people do.
 
Affirmative action reminds me of the childhood friend who doesn't like to lose at a game, so he invents new nonexistent rules nobody heard about before, that would advantage him. It's OK from a kid, it's disgusting from adults. Especially when they piss on you and tell you it's raining.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.