Post: #1

While reading the joke that is the Boston Globe, I came across this interesting article: "If you don’t rent to criminals, are you a racist?" Of course, Betteridge's law of headlines tells us the answer is "No" and that should be the end of that. Not to the Obama administration.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/...story.html

Here's a relevant snippet:

Quote:The Department of Housing and Urban Development warned last week that landlords who refuse to rent to anyone with a criminal record are in violation of the Fair Housing Act and can be prosecuted and fined for racial discrimination.

In a 10-page “guidance” issued on April 4, the federal agency announced that any landlord with a blanket policy of not renting to people with a criminal conviction is effectively discriminating on the basis of race or national origin. “Because of widespread racial and ethnic disparities in the US criminal justice system,” HUD’s new guidelines read, “criminal history-based restrictions on access to housing are likely disproportionately to burden African-Americans and Hispanics. . . . [T]herefore such a practice would violate the Fair Housing Act.”

The administration’s argument is twofold. First, because blacks and Hispanics commit crimes and go to prison at much higher rates than whites, a policy of automatically rejecting applicants with a criminal past will have a “disparate impact” on different racial groups. And second, not all convictions are alike, and not everyone with a prior criminal record would be a risky tenant.

Both points are indisputably true. It isn’t hard to find examples of former convicts who long ago learned their lesson and went straight, yet find it difficult to secure housing because background checks always flag their old offenses. HUD Secretary Julián Castro laments that too many landlords “use the fact of a conviction, any conviction, regardless of what it was for or how long ago it happened,” to turn away prospective tenants, thwarting those who “are only looking for a fair chance to be productive members” of society.

Of course, the article goes on to mention that discriminating against protected classes, like race, is already enshrined in the law but this ties into the whole "disparate impact" theory which gained increased prominence with a successful Supreme Court case earlier this year.

My original intention when typing up this post was to lambast HUD in continuing the Obama government's policy of circumventing government and using executive orders & letters from agencies to push policy changes (our main example of reference being the "Dear Colleague" letter that forces colleges to ramp up their rape hysteria obligations in order to maintain federal funding under Title IX). Forcing landlords to take on tenants when it's not wise to do so isn't right or fair.


Then I saw the article quoted Julián (nice accent) Castro, who's been in the news a fair bit lately as he's on the campaign trail bigtime in support of Hilary Clinton. I decided to look a little deeper into his history and I can see he's the future of the Democratic party, so I want to bring everyone up to date on his past and current situation:

-He's considered one of the top potential VP picks for Hilary Clinton

-Despite what you'd assume based on pictures of him in the Globe and Wikipedia, he is apparently heterosexual, married with two children. There is no doubt he's extremely effeminate, which means a Clinton-Castro ticket would be a fantastic one-two punch completely devoid of masculinity.

-He has a twin brother who's currently in the House of Representatives

-He was raised by a single mother, so no real male influence in his life

-He was the keynote speaker at the 2012 democratic national convention, which is usually the precursor to greater political ambitions (e.g. Obama was the 2004 keynote speaker)

-His mother created the "La Raza Unida" political party back in the 70s (La Raza, eh? hmm...)

-He's 41 years old


You can certainly see the parallels between him and Obama. Just wait for the push for our first latino president in 2020 or 2024! At 41, he's got a long career feeding at the public trough ahead of him.

Post: #2

This is a very unscientific post on my end, but that dude for sure takes it up the ass. I've seen that type of face on way too many gay dudes.

Post: #3

Looks like a fag, so he will probably do well.

Post: #4

Yet that hippie faggot in Colorado is allowed to turn down rental applicants who support Trump?

Hippie faggots should be allowed to rent to whomever they want, just as other homeowners should be allowed to tell black, Hispanic AND white criminals to kick fuckin rocks and go find somewhere else to live.

Our freedoms as Americans are being eroded every single day by this weak liberal mindset.

Post: #5

What an appropriate surname.

Post: #6

(04-10-2016 02:51 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  Yet that hippie faggot in Colorado is allowed to turn down rental applicants who support Trump?

I hadn't heard about this so looked it up, here's a link for anyone else who didn't know:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...upporters/

Jesus. But like the article correctly points out, "political affiliation" is not a class.

I love when I read in the Trump thread how somebody uses a Trump ringtone or wallpaper and gets a good reaction from his boss and/or coworkers; but that boss could just as easily terminate your employment for no reason other than Trump support.

Scary.


Also glad to see Castro's appearance is eliciting the same thoughts from forum members as I had. Funny thing is I googled "julian castro gay" and nobody's insinuating he is (or google is suppressing it if so) but I did come across this:

http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/stop-...nda-005524

While mayor in San Antonio, he served as "Grand Mashall" in the city's gay pride parade. Also interesting that the article says San Antonio is turning into a San Francisco-lite. Hmm.

Also this article presents summarizes the Castro future way better than my first post did: http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/04/1...-of-obama/

(04-10-2016 03:03 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  What an appropriate surname.

Yeah part of me hopes a gay-faced latino named "Castro" on the ticket would turn people off more than help. Guess we'll see if he gets the spot in a few months!

Post: #7

Actually according to Matt Drudge from DrudgeReport (which is considered the top political news website), Clinton will pick one of these Castro brothers as her VP if she is nominated as the Democratic candidate. Why would she not, they're hispanic and the people are dumb enough to vote based on race and gender so works out.

Post: #8

(04-10-2016 08:09 PM)highcardace Wrote:  Actually according to Matt Drudge from DrudgeReport (which is considered the top political news website), Clinton will pick one of these Castro brothers as her VP if she is nominated as the Democratic candidate. Why would she not, they're hispanic and the people are dumb enough to vote based on race and gender so works out.

They don't look hispanic to me. They look Eurasians. Am I missing something?

Post: #9

From Wikipedia:

Quote:Castro has credited affirmative action for his admission into Stanford, telling The New York Times, "Joaquín and I got into Stanford because of affirmative action. I scored 1210 on my SATs, which was lower than the median matriculating student. But I did fine in college and in law school. So did Joaquín. I’m a strong supporter of affirmative action because I’ve seen it work in my own life".

Post: #10

(04-10-2016 10:08 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  From Wikipedia:

Quote:Castro has credited affirmative action for his admission into Stanford, telling The New York Times, "Joaquín and I got into Stanford because of affirmative action. I scored 1210 on my SATs, which was lower than the median matriculating student. But I did fine in college and in law school. So did Joaquín. I’m a strong supporter of affirmative action because I’ve seen it work in my own life".

Which is funny because I took a quick look at this earlier today when I was writing up the thread:

http://digital.utsa.edu/cdm/ref/collecti...l4/id/2016

And while skimming, this part caught my eye:

Quote:Julian Castro; Stanford was one of the schools that both Joaquin and I got into. And also, we wanted to go away to college and because of their diversity. Mainly, 'cause of the university and their diversity and we both got in, and it's a great university. Somewhere we thought it would be neat to go, being in California.

"diversity"

he doesn't credit AA in that interview, at least. Funny he gives that up to NYT. Also didn't realize he was an intern in the Clinton White House, that's interesting...

Post: #11

(04-10-2016 10:08 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  From Wikipedia:

Quote:Castro has credited affirmative action for his admission into Stanford, telling The New York Times, "Joaquín and I got into Stanford because of affirmative action. I scored 1210 on my SATs, which was lower than the median matriculating student. But I did fine in college and in law school. So did Joaquín. I’m a strong supporter of affirmative action because I’ve seen it work in my own life".

This is part of the reason why I am working on starting my own business that will be completely unrelated to my degree.

I have been saving for over a year now and in the middle of this year, I will hit my savings goal, leave my job and work on my business full time.

My goal is to have as wildly a successful business as humanly possible, just to prove that college degrees are pieces of paper that do not define a person.

Post: #12

(04-10-2016 11:18 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 10:08 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  From Wikipedia:

Quote:Castro has credited affirmative action for his admission into Stanford, telling The New York Times, "Joaquín and I got into Stanford because of affirmative action. I scored 1210 on my SATs, which was lower than the median matriculating student. But I did fine in college and in law school. So did Joaquín. I’m a strong supporter of affirmative action because I’ve seen it work in my own life".

This is part of the reason why I am working on starting my own business that will be completely unrelated to my degree.

I have been saving for over a year now and in the middle of this year, I will hit my savings goal, leave my job and work on my business full time.

My goal is to have as wildly a successful business as humanly possible, just to prove that college degrees are pieces of paper that do not define a person.

Those Castro brothers are the perfect combination of smarts, timing, affirmative action and huge lucky breaks. I have seen this happen quite often to Hispanics.
I hope he doesnt fall for being fucked over by the Clinton machine. He should just get out after Obama and run for another office. He is a beloved son of San Antonio and doesnt need Hillary for a red cent.

Post: #13

(04-10-2016 12:15 PM)Last Parade Wrote:  -Despite what you'd assume based on pictures of him in the Globe and Wikipedia, he is apparently heterosexual, married with two children. There is no doubt he's extremely effeminate, which means a Clinton-Castro ticket would be a fantastic one-two punch completely devoid of masculinity.

Marriage and children doesn't always prove heterosexuality. There are sleeper faggots, like Bruce Jenner, who use marriage and family as a front to avoid questions.

Post: #14

(04-10-2016 11:23 PM)rpg Wrote:  Those Castro brothers are the perfect combination of smarts, timing, affirmative action and huge lucky breaks. I have seen this happen quite often to Hispanics.
I hope he doesnt fall for being fucked over by the Clinton machine. He should just get out after Obama and run for another office. He is a beloved son of San Antonio and doesnt need Hillary for a red cent.

I've worked on calming myself down the last couple days, so I will explain my reasoning in a less abrasive way.

My problem with affirmative action is not that it helps out Mexicans, blacks, Native Americans, women. It is that affirmative action helps this group people at the expense of other people having an opportunity.

More specifically affirmative action helps out Mexicans, blacks, Native Americans at the expense of white Christians and Asians.

Two groups have to be excluded from a certain level of admissions in order for a few other groups to be promoted, which is by definition discrimination.

On top of this affirmative action does not assess the systemic problems for why the black or Mexican community have more difficulty reaching the education level necessary to get high admission rates to top universities without affirmative action. Namely, a lot of schools in districts heavily populated by those groups tend to be underfunded relative to white and Asian communities.

I think we should oust affirmative action completely and begin to instate blind admissions based on testing results, so that we take on those who have proven themselves to succeed within top universities while simultaneously preventing ourselves from allowing subjective perceptions of performance to infiltrate the admissions process that would allow discrimination. This is what Caltech does and mindblowingly enough, they have a huge Asian population there.

As a final point, I also believe that we should have public universities with free admission. Ideally, the public universities would have gender studies, communications, sociology gutted and would teach primarily philosophy, political science, business, STEM and higher level humanities courses. Like Argentina, India, and multiple European countries these public universities would have entrance exams in order to maintain a higher level student body while simultaneously giving the opportunity for the public to have a chance at obtaining a college degree no matter what economic background they came from.

Post: #15

the future face of the dem is not exactly wholesome

Post: #16

Why do Latinos, Muslims (edit- and women, despite being a majority in the country*) etc qualify for Affirmative Action? Wasn't it set up in the 1960s for Blacks? I wonder if Trump would point this out. He's gonna get like 5% of the Hispanic vote so may as well go scorched earth and get more black vote.

Post: #17

I wouldn't trust that man around children, small dogs, or the elderly with a face like that.

Post: #18

He is a non person to Hillary now. Not sure what happened between them but it wasnt good.

Post: #19

(04-14-2016 03:58 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  I've worked on calming myself down the last couple days, so I will explain my reasoning in a less abrasive way.

My problem with affirmative action is not that it helps out Mexicans, blacks, Native Americans, women. It is that affirmative action helps this group people at the expense of other people having an opportunity.

More specifically affirmative action helps out Mexicans, blacks, Native Americans at the expense of white Christians and Asians.

Two groups have to be excluded from a certain level of admissions in order for a few other groups to be promoted, which is by definition discrimination.

On top of this affirmative action does not assess the systemic problems for why the black or Mexican community have more difficulty reaching the education level necessary to get high admission rates to top universities without affirmative action. Namely, a lot of schools in districts heavily populated by those groups tend to be underfunded relative to white and Asian communities.

I think we should oust affirmative action completely and begin to instate blind admissions based on testing results, so that we take on those who have proven themselves to succeed within top universities while simultaneously preventing ourselves from allowing subjective perceptions of performance to infiltrate the admissions process that would allow discrimination. This is what Caltech does and mindblowingly enough, they have a huge Asian population there.

As a final point, I also believe that we should have public universities with free admission. Ideally, the public universities would have gender studies, communications, sociology gutted and would teach primarily philosophy, political science, business, STEM and higher level humanities courses. Like Argentina, India, and multiple European countries these public universities would have entrance exams in order to maintain a higher level student body while simultaneously giving the opportunity for the public to have a chance at obtaining a college degree no matter what economic background they came from.

If you would like to know what the demographics of a top university would look like without affirmative action, take a look at Caltech.

Caltech does not ask for race on their application and emphasizes test scores and grades.

Here is their breakdown:

Quote:Men 61%
Women 39%

White 27%
Asian 45%
*Underrepresented Minority 16%

* Underrepresented Minority includes:

-American Indian or Alaskan Native
-Black or African American
-Hispanic or Latino
-Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
-Students who declared two or more races with one of the above identified

Post: #20

We talked about the government experimenting with pushing section 8 housing late last year into middle class suburbs. A few of us predicted it was going to be greenlit for the rest of the nation eventually. Props to TonySandos for making the thread.

Not surprised at all that Obama and the new Democrat latino affirmative action wonderboy is pushing this into official policy.

You can read the old thread here:

/thread-52429...=section+8


It's sad that we seem to able to predict every piece of shitty policy of the U.S. government and the general dishonest behavior of the elites these days with stunning accuracy.