who knows? all I know is that the whole political system is broken.

Bingo, it's trying to be a political hitpiece when all it's *really* saying is that hiring practices by politicians and political outfits may not fit with the avowed ideology of said political outfits.

Which is totally true, of course, like the unpaid internships you get on both sides of the aisle, either from "personal generosity" republicans or "equality now" democrats, where aside from working for free, you have to figure out how to support yourself in super-expensive DC or pray that mom and dad will cover it (i got the latter, but it was a sub-in for a college semester anyway).

The fact that Republicans do it would almost be expected based on the ideas people have about them, however (that they are racist, etc.). But for a party that is so obsessed with equality (rather, a party that states they are obsessed with equality, pretty much the entire history of mankind will reveal they don't care any more about equality than anybody else), you would expect that this should never, ever, ever happen. Perioud. For it to happen in such a way just further proves they are just big talkers and don't actually care about equality at all.

What? I'll illustrate why this is wrong.

Lets use a fake company called Black & White LTD. They have 150 employees, 30 of which are black (20%). The company only has 2 different pay scales: Grunt, and Manager. Grunts make $50,000 per year, and managers make $100,000 per year. 125 of the employees are grunts, where 25 of the employees are managers. The law of averages says that 25 of the grunts will be black people (20%), and 5 of the managers will be black people (20%). The average manager pay is thus $58,333 per year. For white people, 100 will be grunts, and 20 will be managers, thus having an average pay of $58,333.

If averages were truly spread evenly throughout all companies, then the average wage of all minorities would be the exact same (assuming the same average education, location, etc.).

Just check Ops username and you'll understand why.

1.  Soooooooo... it's ok for Republicans to be racist as long as they don't say they're not racist?  Ummmm... ok... 

2.  The article claims that IF Republicans had unfair hiring practices, then it WOULD be front page news.  Then, the same article says that Republicans DO have unfair hiring practices and it ISN'T front page news.  So, the article defeats its own argument, which is hilarious.

3.  The study they linked to actually showed that far more minorities work in Democratic campaign.

4.  The article doesn't really speak to unfair hiring practices, but broader issues.  White people and Asian people graduate high school, and earn degrees at far higher rates than black people and latino people.  About 40% of whites age 25-29 have a bachelors degree compared to 20% of black people.  So, it stands to reason that white people are going to get the better jobs in campaigns which would explain a gap in payment.

5.  Compared to republicans, there are more minorities working democratic campaigns.  So, if there are hiring more minorities and minorities tend to have lower educational attainment, where are they going to be hired?  Lower level jobs, which skews the numbers.  Democrats tend to focus a lot more on minority votes, since they do well in those segments, which is going to lead to more lower level job openings for minorities.

6.  Nationally, the wage gap between blacks and whites is about 66%.  Black people make 66 cents to a dollar for white people.  So, the fact that we see basically the same ratio in democratic campaigns seems like a non-story.

Study shows GOP pays online trolls to spread propaganda and bullshit in numerous social media sites/online communities.

1. I never said it was ok for Republicans to be racist. I said it would be more expected, given that that is how we perceive them to be. I expect lots of people to act in ways that I don't think are ok. That is just human nature.

2. I'd argue it is made very clear via liberal news agencies on a recurring basis that Republicans are not fair to minorities. VERY clear.

3. Having more minorities working for you does not mean you are not racist. We'll use an example of an incredibly racist farmer who then goes and employs Mexican workers (a minority).

4. I will agree that minorities have lower education, but if that is the argument being made, then there SHOULD be a wage gap between different ethnicities. The problem with this argument, however, is you will never, ever, get somebody who thinks racism needs to stop to say that a wage gap should exist so long as there is an education gap.

5. You are once again using the education argument, but you can't even look just at the pay being received. If they are hiring so many more minorities, perhaps Democrats themselves are actually being unfair to non-minority groups by giving preference to hiring minorities. The fact that they are just hiring more minorities doesn't just give them the clear from being racist themselves. Keep in mind, racism can (and does) exist against whites in many cases too. If you aren't familiar with a situation, I'll provide one I've had to deal with for 5 years. There are CONSIDERABLY more scholarships available for minorities than there are for a white male (I have seen exactly 0 scholarships in my entire college life that were specifically dedicated to white males...it would be considered incredibly offensive and racist, yet there are a huge plethora of scholarships that only minorities can receive...yet this is somehow not racist).

6. No, it actually seems like a pretty gigantic story. A Democrat would argue to the death with me that we are racist against blacks, and therefore pay them less because of it. They wouldn't use the education argument, they would simply say we are paying them less because they are black. But these percentages indicate that even the Democratic party, which is supposed to be (I say supposed to be because they are also incredibly racist, just to different people) non-racist, actually pays black people at virtually the exact same lower amounts than everybody else does. So it seems to me a pretty big story could be released that tells Democrats they need to make up their mind, and that either everybody (including Democrats, despite saying it is so horrible) is racist against black people regarding pay, or nobody is racist against black people regarding pay (including Republicans), and it actually has a lot more to do with the fact that the education among them is, on average, lower than their white counterparts. It may be troublesome to realize what I am saying here, but it has more to do with the fact that it goes to show many of the arguments people use against somebody such as myself and why I am racist either cannot be used because there are other underlying factors, or must also be used against themselves because they follow the exact same practices.

1.  Only holding one party accountable is grossly unfair, particularly when the data does not support that.  The article basically completely excuses republicans while condemning democrats.

2.  Reread the article.  They claim it would be front page news if the same thing about democrats in the article was true for the republicans.  Then, they say the same thing IS true.  I've never seen front page news about it.  The article defeats its own argument. 

3.  The article is about hiring practices being fair or unfair.  I'd say having more opportunities for minorities is indicative of fairer hiring practices.  Campaign wages are pretty standardized, so it's not like farmers who are hiring Mexicans and paying them less than minimum wage.

4.  Of course there should be a wage gap if there is an educational gap.  The problem is that there is an educational gap. 

5.  It's not a matter of unfairness, but more likely a matter of needs.  Democrats have historically performed better with minorities, and they put a lot more emphasis on minority votes.  So, they need more field workers within minority communities.  Naturally, someone from that community would be better at the job, particularly in Latino or Asian communities where language barriers exist.  As far as scholarships go, there is really not need for scholarships for whites as they're not a group that faces large scale social injustice.   You could argue for scholarships based on income levels, but those exist i.e. pell grants. 

6.  It seems that your creating strawmen arguments that weren't made, and using the biased article to refute that.  That kind of silly partisan bickering is certainly not newsworthy. 

Yes, in a truly equal society and I am guilty of oversimplification. But in the real world only one black person will be a manager and 29 be grunts, thus skewing the average salary in favour of the whites.

There are historical as well as contemporary reasons for why certain minoroities are under-represented in the upper echelons of income and organisational seniority. So an under-representation in senior positions in an organisation is not necessarily indicative of organisational racism. But it is an indication of societal racial inequality, of which an organisation is merely a reflection. If an organisation has a seniority balance more favourable to historically disadvantaged minorities than the generality of society, then this is likely to reflect well on the culture of that organisation. But still, unless it meets that ideal of truly proportional equality there will still be a gross pay differential based on race in favour of the historically more advantaged race.

The fact remains that the OP and associated right wing diatribe seems to be based on a very bad, and selective analysis of what seems to be a reasonably objective study.