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.
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.