The effects of racist policies going back centuries are now self-perpetuating.
Let's, for the sake of argument, say that's true. Is the answer really to let in blacks at six times the rate of whites, or whatever, when they have the same score?
I wish these people would be open about exactly what it is they're talking about. Exactly who is being affected, both negatively and positively, and if that's fair. It's all well and good to say 'racism bad, we should do something about that,' but that's not what this court case is about. This isn't about diversity. It isn't about racism. Well, it is, but not the main kind (white-on-black) that liberals recognize.
I've heard it so much today. That this is discrimination against blacks, that this is banning them from college, this is segregation. No, this is righting some of the unfair policies that targeted races that on average performed well. It was utter bullshit, deserved to be overturned, and never should have been allowed in the first place.
These cowards need to speak clearly about what it is they're advocating for, and what questions this case actually answered.
This wasn't a referendum on Racism™, this wasn't a referendum on blacks.
It's a sad state of affairs when this lib is at the lowest my third favorite candidate, and the other two also leave varying degrees of sour taste in my mouth. We need better candidates, man. I like Trump, but he's sorta retarded. I respect some of what DeSantis has done, but I think he's snake. I like a few of RFK's takes, and appreciate that he's at least mostly anti-establishment, but he's a lib through-and-through. I want better choices, fuck.
Indirectly it was a referendum on blacks because left or right if we're being honest, we know only one group benefitted from it. And why wouldn't they? That's the group it was specifically designed to benefit even if no one ever said it explicitly.
We all know what inner city means. What bad neighborhood means. What "youths" means. The polite euphemisms we create to avoid stating the obvious ugly truth. AA was created to favor blacks and it going away will undo that. But colleges are about to become much safer places.
AA was created to favor Democrats. It is a matter of indifference whether blacks are harmed or benefited by it, as long as all they have can be claimed to be a political favor.
There were some people on social media yesterday denouncing Clarence Thomas for having allegedly benefited from AA and now voting to outlaw it. Because if you ever benefit from AA, even if you didn't ask for it, you are in their debt forever.
Is the answer really to let in blacks at six times the rate of whites, or whatever, when they have the same score?
Also - the racist administrators were basically admitting ultra rich Nigerian princes. Not the poor US blacks. Because they cared about the optics, not the country.
We need better candidates, man. I like Trump, but he's sorta retarded. I respect some of what DeSantis has done, but I think he's snake. I like a few of RFK's takes, and appreciate that he's at least mostly anti-establishment, but he's a lib through-and-through. I want better choices, fuck.
I agree 100%, you just described my views on the current options to a T.
Yup. Only good thing I can say is, at least there are semi-palatable people in both parties this time around; that wasn't really the case last time around. You had Trump, or you had Covidiot Gun Grabbing Authoritarian Dem #XX.
Question is, in the unlikely scenario that neither Trump, DeSantis, or RFK make the ballot...am I writing in Trump, or RFK?
Exactly who is being affected, both negatively and positively
My feeling/experience is that "black americans" are unlikely to be benefiting from these policies in the first place.
Most of the people I've seen benefit are either white women or people who's parents are from other countries - completely uninvolved in the so called "history of discrimination in the us".
Let's, for the sake of argument, say that's true. Is the answer really to let in blacks at six times the rate of whites, or whatever, when they have the same score?
For the decent people who support such bad policies, and I do believe RFK Jr. is a decent person unlike 100% of politicians, it is just pure emotion, zero reason. Blacks were treated badly in US history, so that calls for stacking the scales now by treating others badly and (supposedly) benefiting blacks. I've never found any of them to care about the practical results of what they support.
Because they don't support it for the blacks, they support it for themselves, so that they can feel good. People don't give money to beggars to help the beggar, they do it to help themselves by feeling good. Even 'decent' people are fundamentally selfish.
That this is discrimination against blacks, that this is banning them from college, this is segregation
One of the worst people in the world is New York Times urinalist Eliza Shapiro, who has dedicated her life to destroying the futures of Asian children. She calls merit-based admission to high schools like Stuyvesant 'segregation', and abolishing merit is 'integration'.
I like a few of RFK's takes, and appreciate that he's at least mostly anti-establishment, but he's a lib through-and-through. I want better choices, fuck.
People in 2024 are spoiled. Twenty years ago, the choice was between two neocon warmongers, and yet Republicans were like: "GO OUT AND VOTE FOR BUSH BECAUSE JOHN KERRY SPEAKS FRENCH". Having any one of RFK, DeSantis or Trump would have been a gold-encrusted jewel at any time before 2016. And yet people complain about this embarrassment of riches.
People in 2024 are spoiled. Twenty years ago, the choice was between two neocon warmongers, and yet Republicans were like: "GO OUT AND VOTE FOR BUSH BECAUSE JOHN KERRY SPEAKS FRENCH". Having any one of RFK, DeSantis or Trump would have been a gold-encrusted jewel at any time before 2016. And yet people complain about this embarrassment of riches.
Yes and no. What you're talking about was in itself a somewhat new phenomenon. We're only spoiled now compared to a couple decades, it's not all of political history. I mean, just a few decades earlier you had Reagan, and decades before that you had JFK; both very popular presidents. And most of the people in between weren't as terrible as the recent choices, either.
RFK is for talking about institutional capture. I want him to talk about the capture of the political parties more, as that's a huge issue. It's amazing they go on and on about representation and democracy, then run their parties like fascists.
Also, to having those three and feeling lucky...we've also never had anyone as bad as Biden, or most of the other Dems, most of the Republicans are as bad as ever. I get what you're saying, and the elections have never been as Safe and Secure™ as they are now. Putting aside the quality of some candidates (and I am even grateful, as I said in another comment), I feel like we've never had less representation. RFK likely won't win the Dem nomination. The Republican nominee will have a massive uphill battle to take on the presumptive opponent, The Most Popular President.
The system is more of a mess than it's ever been, and while I am glad to have those three around, I certainly don't feel spoiled.
Let's, for the sake of argument, say that's true. Is the answer really to let in blacks at six times the rate of whites, or whatever, when they have the same score?
I wish these people would be open about exactly what it is they're talking about. Exactly who is being affected, both negatively and positively, and if that's fair. It's all well and good to say 'racism bad, we should do something about that,' but that's not what this court case is about. This isn't about diversity. It isn't about racism. Well, it is, but not the main kind (white-on-black) that liberals recognize.
I've heard it so much today. That this is discrimination against blacks, that this is banning them from college, this is segregation. No, this is righting some of the unfair policies that targeted races that on average performed well. It was utter bullshit, deserved to be overturned, and never should have been allowed in the first place.
These cowards need to speak clearly about what it is they're advocating for, and what questions this case actually answered.
This wasn't a referendum on Racism™, this wasn't a referendum on blacks.
It's a sad state of affairs when this lib is at the lowest my third favorite candidate, and the other two also leave varying degrees of sour taste in my mouth. We need better candidates, man. I like Trump, but he's sorta retarded. I respect some of what DeSantis has done, but I think he's snake. I like a few of RFK's takes, and appreciate that he's at least mostly anti-establishment, but he's a lib through-and-through. I want better choices, fuck.
Indirectly it was a referendum on blacks because left or right if we're being honest, we know only one group benefitted from it. And why wouldn't they? That's the group it was specifically designed to benefit even if no one ever said it explicitly.
We all know what inner city means. What bad neighborhood means. What "youths" means. The polite euphemisms we create to avoid stating the obvious ugly truth. AA was created to favor blacks and it going away will undo that. But colleges are about to become much safer places.
AA was created to favor Democrats. It is a matter of indifference whether blacks are harmed or benefited by it, as long as all they have can be claimed to be a political favor.
There were some people on social media yesterday denouncing Clarence Thomas for having allegedly benefited from AA and now voting to outlaw it. Because if you ever benefit from AA, even if you didn't ask for it, you are in their debt forever.
And how stupid does it sound to say “I have second rate employees, but my staff is so diverse”
Also - the racist administrators were basically admitting ultra rich Nigerian princes. Not the poor US blacks. Because they cared about the optics, not the country.
I agree 100%, you just described my views on the current options to a T.
Yup. Only good thing I can say is, at least there are semi-palatable people in both parties this time around; that wasn't really the case last time around. You had Trump, or you had Covidiot Gun Grabbing Authoritarian Dem #XX.
Question is, in the unlikely scenario that neither Trump, DeSantis, or RFK make the ballot...am I writing in Trump, or RFK?
The first time I voted for president, I wrote in Ron Paul :)
I would pull the lever for either Trump or DeSantis without too much pain though. They are speed bumps at least.
My feeling/experience is that "black americans" are unlikely to be benefiting from these policies in the first place.
Most of the people I've seen benefit are either white women or people who's parents are from other countries - completely uninvolved in the so called "history of discrimination in the us".
The whole point of elections at this stage is to jangle the puppets in front of you and see which one makes you feel good.
Then the deep state does what it wants anyway.
For the decent people who support such bad policies, and I do believe RFK Jr. is a decent person unlike 100% of politicians, it is just pure emotion, zero reason. Blacks were treated badly in US history, so that calls for stacking the scales now by treating others badly and (supposedly) benefiting blacks. I've never found any of them to care about the practical results of what they support.
Because they don't support it for the blacks, they support it for themselves, so that they can feel good. People don't give money to beggars to help the beggar, they do it to help themselves by feeling good. Even 'decent' people are fundamentally selfish.
One of the worst people in the world is New York Times urinalist Eliza Shapiro, who has dedicated her life to destroying the futures of Asian children. She calls merit-based admission to high schools like Stuyvesant 'segregation', and abolishing merit is 'integration'.
People in 2024 are spoiled. Twenty years ago, the choice was between two neocon warmongers, and yet Republicans were like: "GO OUT AND VOTE FOR BUSH BECAUSE JOHN KERRY SPEAKS FRENCH". Having any one of RFK, DeSantis or Trump would have been a gold-encrusted jewel at any time before 2016. And yet people complain about this embarrassment of riches.
Yes and no. What you're talking about was in itself a somewhat new phenomenon. We're only spoiled now compared to a couple decades, it's not all of political history. I mean, just a few decades earlier you had Reagan, and decades before that you had JFK; both very popular presidents. And most of the people in between weren't as terrible as the recent choices, either.
RFK is for talking about institutional capture. I want him to talk about the capture of the political parties more, as that's a huge issue. It's amazing they go on and on about representation and democracy, then run their parties like fascists.
Also, to having those three and feeling lucky...we've also never had anyone as bad as Biden, or most of the other Dems, most of the Republicans are as bad as ever. I get what you're saying, and the elections have never been as Safe and Secure™ as they are now. Putting aside the quality of some candidates (and I am even grateful, as I said in another comment), I feel like we've never had less representation. RFK likely won't win the Dem nomination. The Republican nominee will have a massive uphill battle to take on the presumptive opponent, The Most Popular President.
The system is more of a mess than it's ever been, and while I am glad to have those three around, I certainly don't feel spoiled.