Ten oz

I don't disagree that other shouldn't do that. I don't believe that. Because white males have the most power and influence (money, CEO positions, most elected offices, etc) it is simply easier to identify when white males are involved.

No place have I implied otherwise. Saying "I don't know" specifically to the claim made, on its own merit, in no way shape or form accuses NASA or proves them guilty of a single thing. I don't see how. Racism can exist without white males being involved.

Who are "they", why do you assume "they" are liberal or care about liberal choices, and why can't a Hispanic or Black female just be the best 2 individuals for the job?

I was unaware they had made a press release directly responding to the claim. I didn't see one on their press release page. Do you have a link I can read?

Technically only the brother has made a statement which we can believe, doubt, or withhold judgement on. To my knowledge NASA hasn't issued a statement responding to the claim. So at this point the discussion is primarily centered around whether or not to believe, doubt, or withhold judgement on the claim. In my opinion withholding judgement is what makes most sense. I know nothing about the brother, very little about the astronaut, and nothing about the person(s) that made the call. I simply do not have enough information to render an opinion. I have no reason to believe or disbelieve the claim on the claim's own merit.

I must not understand your question. Can you rephrase it? I wasn't deflecting anything. Observations; at a minimum don't we need to know which person(s) made the decision and hear their account for why? NASA has a public relations office. Since this is in the news I'd imagine they will be responding shortly. No need for our own pet hypotheses.

Which proves what? Additionally what am I claiming that you are attempting to counter? Raider's OP asked for thoughts on the story. My thoughts are that I have no idea what happened and thus far no one in this discussion does either. What is "I don't know" a problematic answer in a situation like this where all the players are not known. If this issue becomes big in the news it would make sense for NASA to explain what happened. At that point we will all have much more info to create opinions with.

I am not questioning NASA's integrity. I am not claiming to know what happened. Have repeatedly posted I don't know who made the call or why. My position is that I don't know what happened. I am simply arguing that thus far no one else in discussion knows either.

It is strange to me you counter your own argument by pointing out the person or people who made the call could be Hispanic (in lieu of neither of us actually knowing) but ironically feel that is somehow anymore conspiratorial than not. Also a person can be racist against individual groups without being so against all Japanese people can hate Chinese people, Italian people hate Russians, Mexican can hate Puerto Ricans, and etc. Assuming that because the person who replaces a black person is Hispanic means races played no role isn't a given; especially considering we have no idea who any of the people who made the choice are.

Absolutely, this is all just purely a speculative discussion. I have no idea what happened, who made the call, or why. I am not pretending to either.

Why can't "I don't know" be the default position?

I have no idea how long ago she was selected; do you? I have no idea how many people in management changed or how many people are involved in making such a decision; do you? Unless you have more knowledge than me it is fair to say neither of us have enough knowledge to say it was or wasn't racism. That is my point.

I have no real opinion about the story because I have no idea at what level these types of decisions are made at NASA but I see no reason for doubt to be the default position.

I don't know if race was a factor or not. I have no idea which individuals or groups made the decision or why. However the fact that she was there in the first place absolutely doesn't automatically mean race couldn't be a factor. Management isn't static. If there are different people in management today than when she was selected than her race could very well have played a role.

Waitforufo is implying it is costing U.S. citizens something when it isn't. Quite the opposite actually: "Research from both the right-leaning Cato Institute and left-leaning Center for American Progress suggests Trump’s economic and immigration goals may be diametrically opposed. Their research indicates that ending DACA — and deporting the workers who will no longer enjoy legal status — could reduce the size of the U.S. economy by anywhere from $280 billion to $430 billion over the next decade." http://time.com/money/4928394/daca-economic-cost-trump/ Having immigrants in the U.S. helps the U.S. economy. It does cost citizens anything. Trump himself made it crystal clear what this about with his shithole comment. It Crux of his complaint wasn't that we couldn't afford to have immigrants or that having them negatively impacted U.S. Citizens but rather the immigrants weren't from countries he preferred like Norway.

What resources?

Asking me a series of different questions doesn't answer the question I asked you. What price is paid by U.S. Citizens by enabling those protected by DACA to stay? Your questions: focusing on "crimes committed" is leapfrogging backyards. DACA is already policy put in place by a POTUS and numerous local govt have laws on the books offering a variety of protections. The debate is whether or not we should end a program, DACA. What "obligation" are you talking about? What are you purposing? You seem to be implying the individuals protected by DACA cost or burden U.S. citizens somehow but you aren't elaborating as to how.

What price are we (U.S. Citizens) paying by letting people raised and educated in the U.S. stay in the U.S.?

From Tax Cuts to Gorsuch the GOP hasn't had a problem getting around filibusters and getting the things they want badly enough with a simple majority.

There is a widespread that the border wall is a pointless waste of money too. Trump's own cabinet, John Kelly and others, don't want a wall and yet Republicans continue to push for billions in funding for it. There is a widespread belief Trump is an idiot in both house and the senate. In the Senate just off the top of my head Corker, Flakes, McCain, Rubio, Cruz, Graham, have all repudiated Trump numerous times yet hold the party line for him nearly without exception (McCain on healthcare vote the lone exception) over and over again. The nations attention and time. DACA was the only issue that mattered, the only thing to debate. Such singular focus isn't easy to come by 3 weeks from now who knows where our attention might be. A natural disaster, terror attack, or etc could create a situation that pushes DACA to the rear. Lets not forget that Dems were readying themselves for this fight back in late August but then Hurricane Harvey, Irma, and Marie hit and a govt shutdown during a national relief effort simply wasn't good for anything or anyone. It is not a given Democrats will be in a position to shut things down again in 3 weeks if Republicans don't deliver. All it would take is increased North Korean tensions and Republicans could easily sell a shutdown as dangerous to the nations best interests,

Yes, if often starts with an anti illegal immigration and then evolves into an anti any immigration position. We are seeing it play out in real time as the Trump administration is both seeking to deport groups here legally and lower the number of immigrant we allow in at all. This isn't new. One only needs to educate themselves on things like Mexican Repatriation or Herbert Hoovers Nationality quotas to understand the long history of racism and the impact it still has on the discussion. "The Mexican Repatriation was a mass deportation of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans from the United States between 1929 and 1936. Estimates of how many were repatriated range from 500,000 to 2,000,000,of whom perhaps 60% were US citizens by birth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation Whereas it is provided in the Act of Congress approved May 26, 1924, entitled "An Act to limit the immigration of aliens into the United States, and for other purposes," as amended by the Joint Resolution of March 4, 1927, entitled "Joint Resolution to amend subdivisions (b) and (e) of Section 11 of the Immigration Act of 1924, as amended," and the Joint Resolution of March 31, 1928, entitled "Joint Resolution to amend subdivisions (b) and (e) of Section 11 of the Immigration Act of 1924, as amended," that-- "The annual quota of any nationality for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1929, and for each fiscal year thereafter, shall be a number which bears the same ratio to 150,000 as the number of inhabitants in continental United States in 1920 having that national origin (ascertained as hereinafter provided in this section) bears to the number of inhabitants in continental United States in 1920, but the minimum quota of any nationality shall be 100." Sec. 11(b). "For the purpose of subdivision (b) national origin shall be ascertained by determining as nearly as may be, in respect of each geographical area which under section 12 is to be treated as a separate country (except the geographical areas specified in subdivision (c) of section 4) the number of inhabitants in continental United States in 1920 whose origin by birth or ancestry is attributable to such geographical area. Such determination shall not be made by tracing the ancestors or descendants of particular individuals, but shall be based upon statistics of immigration and emigration, together with rates of increase of population as shown by successive decennial United States censuses, and such other data as may be found to be reliable." Sec. 11(c). "For the purpose of subdivisions (b) and (c) the term 'inhabitants in continental United States in 1920' does not include (1) immigrants from the geographical areas specified in subdivision (c) of section 4 or their descendants, (2) aliens ineligible to citizenship or their descendants, (3) the descendants of slave immigrants, or (4) the descendants of American aborigines." Sec. 11(d). "The determination provided for in subdivision (c) of this section shall be made by the 'Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Labor, jointly. In making such determination such officials may call for information and expert assistance from the Bureau of the Census. Such officials shall, jointly, report to the President the quota of each nationality, determined as provided in subdivision (b), and the President shall proclaim and make known the quotas so reported. Such proclamation shall be made on or before April 1, 1929. If the proclamation is not made on or before such date, quotas proclaimed therein shall not be in effect for any fiscal year beginning before the expiration of 90 days after the date of the proclamation. After the making of a proclamation under this subdivision the quotas proclaimed therein shall continue with the same effect as if specifically stated herein, and shall be final and conclusive for every purpose except (1) in so far as it is made to appear to the satisfaction of such officials and proclaimed by the President, that an error of fact has occurred in such determination or in such proclamation, or (2) in the case provided for in subdivision (c) of Section 12. If for any reason quotas proclaimed under this subdivision are not in effect for any fiscal year, quotas for such year shall be determined under subdivision (a) of this section." Sec. 11(e). And Whereas the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Labor have reported to the President that pursuant to the duty imposed and the authority conferred upon them in and by the Act approved May 26, 1924, they jointly have made the determination required by said Act and fixed the quota of each respective nationality in accordance therewith to be as hereinafter set forth; Now, Therefore, I, Herbert Hoover, President of the United States of America, acting under and by virtue of the power in me vested by the aforesaid Act of Congress, do hereby proclaim and make known that the annual quota of each nationality for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1929, and for each fiscal year thereafter, has been determined in accordance with the law to be, and shall be, as follows: NATIONAL ORIGIN IMMIGRATION QUOTAS http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=21838 The quotas are listed on the link. They include things like only 100 people from allowed from China but 65,000 allowed from England.

I agree with iNow's position. What will change in their (Democrats) favor in the next 3 weeks. All the GOP agreed to do is address DACA and have a vote. 51 Republicans could vote to end DACA and have all 800,000 protected by DACA be deported and Republicans would still be keeping their end of the bargain. Despite the Senate being nearly split equally the narrative is Republicans need 9 Democrats to pass a budget and not Democrats need 11 Republicans; either adds up to 60 votes. All giving Republicans another 3 weeks does in allow them time to have a 80's style training montage and comeback more prepared to fight. Republicans have repeated proven to be dishonest negotiators. They filibustered Garland demanding 60 votes but then seated Gorsuch with a simple majority. There is no good faith here. There is no status quo. Republicans will move forward in which ever way best suits them and could careless about what they agreed to. This is most the same group that voted to repeal the ACA over 100 times. They do not fear redundant divisive battles or damaging what's in the public's best interest.

A better question is what percentage of the policy position is based on race? With regards to Immigration Trump has already made it clear race drives that discussion when he asked where we aren't getting immigrants from Norway. Other issues from gun control to heathcare are steeped in racial tension.

You mean 8%, 27%, and 29%, the rested voted third party. Again, Some Jewish people aided Hitler. Anyone can be a racist or an apologist for racists.

Amazon and fast food didn't even exist 50yrs ago. Both were born from simplifying process. The type of jobs people do are always changing. To say Robots will replace jobs which themselves replaced other jobs only support the point I am making. You can have the last word. This is off topic as the thread is about the shutdown.