Landmark SCOTUS Ruling On Affirmative Action

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

I’m myopic for seeing what’s been in front of me for 7 years instead of seeing the speculative future you hope for that reflects what Republicans truly want? Aren’t you essentially saying these Republicans choosing Trump are being irrational because he doesn’t offer what they truly want?

I’m saying you can’t see conservatives and anything other than Trump supporters and that is sad. You and Homer are a pair.  I see you different than a  hard core leftist because of your stance on gender affirming care, but that’s just me. 

[auburnatl1 5,010]

2 hours ago, LPTiger said:

Does Pelosi bear any blame for what happened on that day?  The Chief of the Capitol Police asked for National Guard troops on Jan. 3.   On one hand you have 100's of idiots who have not been elected to run our country and on the other you have the Speaker of the House who was elected and won the speakership and as a result was responsible for security.   If the Guard had been present would Jan. 6 even be a thing?

I’ll never defend pelosi but the whole damn threat was so surreal.  So we need to deploy a branch of the army to protect the capital from a presidential rally?   Ps apologies for sidetracking thread

Edited July 2, 2023 by auburnatl1

[aubaseball 2,648]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

It’s about intent. Their’s and Trump’s. You want to ignore the obvious because you don’t care. Or perhaps you’re disappointed they’re incompetent.

I think it was a skid mark stain of epic proportions on the American psyche.   I think it was dumb, stupid and criminal.   I believe all that caused damage and hurt police officers should receive just punishment for their actions.   No questions asked and nothing less.  
what I don’t agree with is that that group of ragtag misfits was somehow going to overthrow our government.    
what some on here have failed to acknowledge is that about a year or so prior, a group showed up in front of the White House and attacked/attempted to gain entry onto the White House grounds.   Yet, I didn’t hear anyone scream insurrection, coup or any other word.   Hell, most said they had every right to conduct themselves that way and it was mostly peaceful.   
 

Do you not see the hypocrisy in any of this?   The looting and rioting that had taken place throughout the summer of love weighed heavily on some people’s mind.   Whether you or others care to believe this or not is not my concern and frankly I don’t care if you do or not.   I believe it had some impact.   I’m not going to change your opinion and you aren’t going to change mine.   All I know is that if what happened at the capitol was an insurrection, America doesn’t know how to do an insurrection.   

[auburnatl1 5,010]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Liz Cheney speaks to this very eloquently:

Liz Cheney is a good illustration for my comments on an earlier thread in which I said I generally  value character and values more than policy  proposals.

I may or may not agree with her on policy issues, but I would never rule out voting for her on the basis of values and character.  She is eligible for my vote.

She’s a person without a party and if she went 3rd party she ironically would probably help trump. But Id vote for her (can you even imagine what reagan would think of trump?)

[homersapien 11,428]

3 hours ago, aubaseball said:

Please.   That group of misfits couldn’t overthrow a Boy Scout meeting 

Well, I'm sure they will improve their effectiveness given another chance. 

As Marjorie Taylor green just flat out said: "the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol “would’ve been armed” if she and former Trump adviser Steve Bannon had planned it."  Just another group of "misfits" huh?

Its oblivious and blaise attitudes like yours that will ultimately put our democracy at risk.  It's a much more fragile thing than you understand.  (Or maybe you plan to be part of the mob.)

[homersapien 11,428]

39 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

I think it was a skid mark stain of epic proportions on the American psyche.   I think it was dumb, stupid and criminal.   I believe all that caused damage and hurt police officers should receive just punishment for their actions.   No questions asked and nothing less.  
what I don’t agree with is that that group of ragtag misfits was somehow going to overthrow our government.    
what some on here have failed to acknowledge is that about a year or so prior, a group showed up in front of the White House and attacked/attempted to gain entry onto the White House grounds.   Yet, I didn’t hear anyone scream insurrection, coup or any other word.   Hell, most said they had every right to conduct themselves that way and it was mostly peaceful.   
 

Do you not see the hypocrisy in any of this?   The looting and rioting that had taken place throughout the summer of love weighed heavily on some people’s mind.   Whether you or others care to believe this or not is not my concern and frankly I don’t care if you do or not.   I believe it had some impact.   I’m not going to change your opinion and you aren’t going to change mine.   All I know is that if what happened at the capitol was an insurrection, America doesn’t know how to do an insurrection.  

The Civil War failed to split the country but it was still a civil war.

This was a direct attack to prevent the functioning of our government for the purpose of re-instating Trump, who lost the election.  And Trump instigated the whole thing and didn't try to stop it until he knew it would fail.

Now he wants to get re-elected and he's already stated his intention to dismantle the existing government structure and install a government that serves him personally:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/07/donald-trump-second-term-purge-plans

Trump’s Authoritarian Plans for a Second Term Should Scare the Crap Out of You

According to a report from Axios, Trump plans to purge the government of career employees with actual expertise, and replace them with only the most hard-core loyalists.

 

If he succeeds, it's people like you that made it possible.

[homersapien 11,428]

34 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

She’s a person without a party and if she went 3rd party she ironically would probably help trump. But Id vote for her (can you even imagine what reagan would think of trump?)

From my understanding of how the Republican primary works (simple winner takes all), he's already a lock to win it. 

[auburnatl1 5,010]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

From my understanding of how the Republican primary works (simple winner takes all), he's already a lock to win it. 

You have to wonder when the maga guys will connect the dots. 35-40% of an electorate, no matter how convicted and passionate, isn’t 51%.  It’s a math thing. (Desantis or the others, who knows). Biden may not be firing on all cylinders - but if the options are dementia or crazyland part 2, Dementia will win. Again. Imo by a bunch.

Gotta love our options. 

[TexasTiger 13,000]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I’m saying you can’t see conservatives and anything other than Trump supporters and that is sad. You and Homer are a pair.  I see you different than a  hard core leftist because of your stance on gender affirming care, but that’s just me. 

You are utterly out of touch with reality because you don’t want it to be true. Everything I’ve said here that you disagree with is grounded in demonstrable fact.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

1 hour ago, aubaseball said:

I think it was a skid mark stain of epic proportions on the American psyche.   I think it was dumb, stupid and criminal.   I believe all that caused damage and hurt police officers should receive just punishment for their actions.   No questions asked and nothing less.  
what I don’t agree with is that that group of ragtag misfits was somehow going to overthrow our government.    
what some on here have failed to acknowledge is that about a year or so prior, a group showed up in front of the White House and attacked/attempted to gain entry onto the White House grounds.   Yet, I didn’t hear anyone scream insurrection, coup or any other word.   Hell, most said they had every right to conduct themselves that way and it was mostly peaceful.   
 

Do you not see the hypocrisy in any of this?   The looting and rioting that had taken place throughout the summer of love weighed heavily on some people’s mind.   Whether you or others care to believe this or not is not my concern and frankly I don’t care if you do or not.   I believe it had some impact.   I’m not going to change your opinion and you aren’t going to change mine.   All I know is that if what happened at the capitol was an insurrection, America doesn’t know how to do an insurrection.   

Yes, looting and rioting anywhere is bad. To equate with what happened on January 6 is asinine.

[cole256 17,084]

On 6/30/2023 at 8:30 AM, AU9377 said:

To be fair, Auburn has been trying for decades to increase minority enrollment.  Even with this ruling, Auburn can consider factors like economic background, where someone lives or graduated from high school and other factors.  There is scholarship money that goes unused every year that is earmarked specifically for minority enrollment. One challenge that has, at times, kept Auburn from attracting some of the most qualified minority candidates is the proximity of Tuskegee University to the Auburn campus.  A friend of mine's son could have attended Auburn and had his entire tuition covered by scholarship money, but he chose to go to Tuskegee instead on a partial scholarship.  I'm not certain how to overcome that. 

I do agree that Auburn needs to keep doing everything possible to attract more minority students and serve the entire state.

Every year Auburn has a bunch of African Americans trying to get scholarships and can't get a penny

[GoAU 1,600]

10 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Conservatives historically have been wary of rapid changes in policy or approach that cause significant disruption to the status quo. They tend to opt for gradual and incremental change. Thus, they understand that longstanding precedent has established norms that should be approached with caution. For example, they might opt for reasonable restrictions on abortion but be wary of dramatic ones. They also tie decisions to longstanding principles and are thus predictable and not given to the whims of a charismatic leader. They value alliances and relationships. They aren’t populists, in fact, they are very wary of them. I see Eisenhower as a traditional conservative. True conservatives aren’t motivated by enraging liberals. That’s pure tribalism and folks who say they don’t like Trump, but just want to enrage liberals are fooling themselves.

Ok - since you mention abortion, being opposed to abortion is not a new position or a dramatic shift - most conservatives have opposed it before Roe.  
 

I agree with tying opinions to longstanding principles as well - like the Constitution.  Conservatives are much more loyal to the Constitution than they are Trump.  

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

Conservatives value and respect the constitution and our rule of law.  Radical "conservatives" (aka MAGAs) don't.

The “MAGA” term is just a construct by libs to try and make conservatives feel bad about supporting our country and the Constitution.  Sure, the term was coined by Trump, but the principals are much bigger than just him.  The right started down this path long before Trump - probably when Obama launch his “world apology tour”.  
 

Other than the handful of knuckleheads that entered the Capital, you don’t see large groups of conservatives disregarding the rule of law.  A far cry from the BLM “mostly peaceful” protests that spanned dozens of cities.  
 

The issue does get more complicated when laws are not uniformly applied or disregarded by the left.  

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

Good grief man.

How about refusing to accept the results of a fair and legal election followed by an insurrectionist attempt to overthrow the results of that election? 

Just for starters.

 

“Fair and legal” - not sure I completely agree with the legal part.  I’m not going to go quite so far as calling it illegitimate- but I don’t agree with the huge amounts of mail in voting that is very questionable from a legality standpoint in many states.  
 

Also, while not defending the acts of the idiots that entered the Capital throwing around the term “insurrection” is sensationalism at its best.   Imagine, an insurrection in the United States, where there are more guns in civilian hands than any other country on Earth, and not  a single person thought they’d need one??  Really?  

[GoAU 1,600]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Its oblivious and blaise attitudes like yours that will ultimately put our democracy at risk.  It's a much more fragile thing than you understand.  (Or maybe you plan to be part of the mob.)

I’m sure you understand that we don’t actually have a democracy, right?  

Funny you mention mob though - I’ll never defend those that entered the Capitol on 1/6, but the libs have had far more “mobs” than conservatives, to include what also could be called an “insurrection” at CHAZ / CHOP, right?   Are all of those people being held accountable?  

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

The Civil War failed to split the country but it was still a civil war.

This was a direct attack to prevent the functioning of our government for the purpose of re-instating Trump, who lost the election.  And Trump instigated the whole thing and didn't try to stop it until he knew it would fail.

Now he wants to get re-elected and he's already stated his intention to dismantle the existing government structure and install a government that serves him personally:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/07/donald-trump-second-term-purge-plans

Trump’s Authoritarian Plans for a Second Term Should Scare the Crap Out of You

According to a report from Axios, Trump plans to purge the government of career employees with actual expertise, and replace them with only the most hard-core loyalists.

 

If he succeeds, it's people like you that made it possible.

First - the people involved in the Capitol riot need to be held accountable. They knew better, took the bait and crossed the line. 
 

Also, the Civil War didn’t “try” to split the country, it absolutely did.  Thankfully it was reunified afterwards.  
 

You literally quoted a “Vanity Fair” article, that quotes Axios, and doesn’t provide any names / details behind the alleged plan - really???   Didn’t you tire of the endless “nameless sources” BS articles about Trump that were either disproven, or never happened?   It’s like the entire media disposed of ethics out of some crazy blood lust against Trump.   

[TexasTiger 13,000]

44 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Ok - since you mention abortion, being opposed to abortion is not a new position or a dramatic shift - most conservatives have opposed it before Roe.  
 

I agree with tying opinions to longstanding principles as well - like the Constitution.  Conservatives are much more loyal to the Constitution than they are Trump.  

The “MAGA” term is just a construct by libs to try and make conservatives feel bad about supporting our country and the Constitution.  Sure, the term was coined by Trump, but the principals are much bigger than just him.  The right started down this path long before Trump - probably when Obama launch his “world apology tour”.  
 

Other than the handful of knuckleheads that entered the Capital, you don’t see large groups of conservatives disregarding the rule of law.  A far cry from the BLM “mostly peaceful” protests that spanned dozens of cities.  
 

The issue does get more complicated when laws are not uniformly applied or disregarded by the left.  

“Fair and legal” - not sure I completely agree with the legal part.  I’m not going to go quite so far as calling it illegitimate- but I don’t agree with the huge amounts of mail in voting that is very questionable from a legality standpoint in many states.  
 

Also, while not defending the acts of the idiots that entered the Capital throwing around the term “insurrection” is sensationalism at its best.   Imagine, an insurrection in the United States, where there are more guns in civilian hands than any other country on Earth, and not  a single person thought they’d need one??  Really?  

Read what I said. Many Conservatives have long opposed abortion, although if you look at the Conservative movement that was less of a conservative Republican view before religious conservatives came to the party after Roe v Wade. Many traditional conservative Republicans had more moderate views on abortion before being run out of the party. But my point about traditional conservatives is that even if they opposed abortion they understand that after 50 years of precedent and societal norms, too dramatic of a restriction can have consequences a person with a conservative temperament would be wary off. They would be more inclined to limit the excesses (e.g. later term abortions.)

Blaming “the Libs” for MAGA is rich. 
 

Folks who downplay Trump’s actions and blame the Justice system don’t respect the rule of law, even if they themselves usually follow it.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/02/us/affirmative-action-university-of-california-davis.html?smid=tw-share

[jj3jordan 2,059]

2 hours ago, cole256 said:

Every year Auburn has a bunch of African Americans trying to get scholarships and can't get a penny

They also have a bunch of skinny white folk trying to get scholarships too and can’t.

[alexava 6,973]

https://www.al.com/educationlab/2023/06/what-are-race-conscious-admissions-do-alabama-colleges-use-affirmative-action.html

 

Al.com article says it won’t affect any Alabama colleges as they admit a very high percentage of applicants anyway and don’t consider or require race on the application. This doesn’t affect way over 99% of people talking about it on either side. 
     I am not up on much of this but it seems to be a reaction to Asian Americans being discriminated against at elite institutions. 

[auburnatl1 5,010]

3 hours ago, GoAU said:

Maga was just a construct by libs to try and make conservatives feel bad about supporting our country and the Constitution.  Sure, the term was coined by Trump, but the principals are much bigger than just him.  The right started down this path long before Trump - probably when Obama launch his “world apology tour”.  
 

I agree with this. I’ve always believed trump was an understandable conservative immune system spasm to Obama and progressivism.  Dont agree but I get it. That explains 2016. But in 2023 with ALL the dangerous, whacky, and psychiatric  dysfunctional stuff that he’s done - how any conservative constitutionalist can still support trump hurts my head.  

There are better conservative options… that are actually conservative.

[GoAU 1,600]

35 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I agree with this. I’ve always believed trump was an understandable conservative immune system spasm to Obama and progressivism.  Dont agree but I get it. That explains 2016. But in 2023 with ALL the dangerous, whacky, and psychiatric  dysfunctional stuff that he’s done - how any conservative constitutionalist can still support trump hurts my head.  

There are better conservative options… that are actually conservative.

Completely agree.   As a conservative, Trump was actually toward the bottom of my list in 2016.  I was pulling hard for Cruz, TBH.  I always viewed Cruz as more Constitutionally sound than Trump.  But, to be honest, from a policy standpoint, Trump did much better than I thought he would in most areas.  One thing I, and most conservatives I know, really like about Trump is he doesn't back down - for anything,  The Republican party lost it's backbone in many ways, and Trump did show the way back from there.  I do think he could have been more professional / distinguished in office, but I don't think any other candidate could have survived the onslaught the liberal media & Democratic party threw at him.  However, now that he's helps the Republicans build some backbone (for example, look at Cruz before and after Trump), it is time for him to step aside and let someone else run with it.   I prefer DeSantis, and possible Scott at this point.  Haley could probably do a good job as well.  Vivek could also be a neat candidate, but I don't see him as having a path.

Pence and Christy need to hang it up as well.

[AU9377 5,025]

4 hours ago, GoAU said:

I’m sure you understand that we don’t actually have a democracy, right?  

Funny you mention mob though - I’ll never defend those that entered the Capitol on 1/6, but the libs have had far more “mobs” than conservatives, to include what also could be called an “insurrection” at CHAZ / CHOP, right?   Are all of those people being held accountable?  

First - the people involved in the Capitol riot need to be held accountable. They knew better, took the bait and crossed the line. 
 

Also, the Civil War didn’t “try” to split the country, it absolutely did.  Thankfully it was reunified afterwards.  
 

You literally quoted a “Vanity Fair” article, that quotes Axios, and doesn’t provide any names / details behind the alleged plan - really???   Didn’t you tire of the endless “nameless sources” BS articles about Trump that were either disproven, or never happened?   It’s like the entire media disposed of ethics out of some crazy blood lust against Trump.   

The U.S. is both a representative democracy and a republic by definition. Yes, we are a republic due to the method by which we elect our President & Vice President, but the rest of our elected representatives are chosen by way of a democratically elected system of voting, where the people choose their representatives by majority vote and individual rights are protected by a constitution.

[aubaseball 2,648]

14 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well, I'm sure they will improve their effectiveness given another chance. 

As Marjorie Taylor green just flat out said: "the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol “would’ve been armed” if she and former Trump adviser Steve Bannon had planned it."  Just another group of "misfits" huh?

It’s oblivious and blaise attitudes like yours that will ultimately put our democracy at risk.  It's a much more fragile thing than you understand.  (Or maybe you plan to be part of the mob.)

I can counter your stupid argument with this stupid argument.   You and rest of left wing nut jobs I guess are for lawlessness and the right Chop type takeovers.   You also must agree that the burning of businesses and cities are just mostly peaceful protests.    Next thing you know, we will be France with thousands in the streets burning and rioting because someone was shot.   But hey, it’s mostly peaceful and it’s warranted because of racism and the systemic oppression of minorities.   The rule of law be damned.   
you listen to the fools, MGT, Trump and whatever knucklehead that talks a bunch of sh$t, and really believe that something is really going to happen that will change our country.   I don’t believe one word they say.  It’s all smoke just to get elected.   

[DKW 86 7,440]

11 hours ago, cole256 said:

Every year Auburn has a bunch of African Americans trying to get scholarships and can't get a penny

To be 100% truthful here, I worked for a community college, and many kids, white-black-whatever do not get schollies at Auburn. AU has the very enviable position of having far more applicants than places and that is why Auburn does not have to offer much in the way of schollies. UAT gives money away like candy. They apparently have to. My kids that went to AU had 27 ACTs and a good application for leadership, outside commitments, etc. I saw a few kids with 21-22s with multiple legacies get in as well. But I am talking mom-dad-sibling legacies all at the same time.

My UAT kids? They had ACT scores as low as (no lie) 15s and mediocre apps. My lowest UAT kid was a waitress at Hooters. Her career goal was to be an upper-tier manager at Hooters, ANYWAY, SHE COULD GET THERE. Was slow as a rock. When she announced that she was going to bama... I just had to bite my tongue. She was mid-pack at Community College. But she stayed very skimpily dressed and she had to interview in turdtown and was immediately accepted. She met with the interview panel Sat and knew by Tuesday she was accepted. They never asked any of her profs if she was really college material. None of us wrote recommendation letters. 

Edited July 3, 2023 by DKW 86

[DKW 86 7,440]

If anyone here thinks that there was ever any chance of our govt being overthrown, you are a nuclear-powered SF. 

The military in this nation is not going to have any part of that. Sorry. You do not understand how that whole "oath to support and defend the Constitution" idea works. I assure you, there was NEVER any chance of that s*** happening.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I haven't read though this thread yet so forgive me if I'm treading well traveled ground here.

I think increasing diversity at colleges and universities is a laudable goal.  I think there are challenges for many blacks and Latinos that don't exist for other groups because of poverty, because of the disparity in resources for elementary/middle/high schools in black/Latino areas compared to white and Asian ones, and other considerations.  So taking such things into account when choosing prospective students is reasonable IMO.

But I also think the SCOTUS ruled correctly on this.  The issue isn't pursuing diversity and crafting admissions to increase enrollment from underrepresented groups, it's how Harvard and UNC went about it.  The data presented in court showed that Harvard was admitting black students whose academic scores put them in the lowest 40th percentile over Asian students who scored in the 100th percentile.  That's not how AA is supposed to work.  

The University of Michigan and Cal-Berkeley modified their affirmative action policies years ago in response to some court rulings and they now use various economic/need factors to help decide on admissions and it has achieved basically the same goals of racial and ethnic diversity as before, but the academic scores are far more in line with other students as well.

Now, all that said, the next thing that needs to go are legacy admissions.  If you're going to say it's not fair to discriminate solely based on race or skin color when academic achievements are so far apart, then the same should be true for legacy admissions. 

[Cardin Drake 1,853]

It's nice to see the courts actually acknowledge that no discrimination based on race actually means no discrimination based on race but it won't make the slightest bit of difference in who the Ivies and other selective colleges admit.  It will marginally effect how they go about it.