Y’all need to fucking vote blue in every election to stop this shit. No third party shit, no “both sides,” no “my vote doesn’t matter.” If you actually want to stop this kind of stuff, you have to vote for democrats in every election.
Because that's how republicans are recorded to vote republican every time, so realistically other choices are just splitting the votes and leaving the republican votes strong.
For the forseeable future unless the republican base breaks they win elections where others try to vote on third party. Because they're voting purely for party and just assuming party is looking out for them.
It happened because the Left chose to vote their individual conscience, including abstaining from voting for imperfect candidates, as if Politics was a negotiation rather than a winner-takes-all race. Biden was not my first choice, but he's a fuck ton better than what Trump would have done in a second term. The Clintons are unabashed globalists, but still a fuck ton better than what Trump did in his first term.
Not just follow that down the line to Senators, House Reps, State Governors, State Reps, County boards, School boards, Sheriff - you name it. There are zero points for second place and liberals vote as if they will change the Democrats by withholding their support for candidates they don't agree with. Boo fucking hoo. Hold your nose and vote for the team that's the closest, because a non-vote is equal to half a vote for the opposite side (insert baseball half-game lead/trailing description here).
I’m sure people like Bloomberg or Rick Caruso are very happy with this ruling. It cements more power into the elite and legacy admissions.
Democrats are a big party - Republicans can get away with voting for whatever R exists while Dems have to constantly fight and filter out billionaire bullshit artists.
This includes primaries. If the left isn't radical enough for you, you can change that within the primaries. It's wild how many complaints about the Dems come from people who only vote in presidential election years.
I tried this because of all the calls to focus on local elections, but I found that in my area there werent any dems running for office. The choice was between "Republican party of Trump" and "Republican party of Reagan," and in one position there was only one person running unopposed, so I didn't bother.
I'm UK but we are similar with local elections, my mates seat in district council was conservative (our center right) for ever, so much so the candidate in last 2 election (8years) was uncontested and so just as a protest he decided to run as a labour (center left) in the last election. His local party paid him lip service but really only access to a printer and a few materials and a tiny spot on a blogwebpage. He never thought he would get in. He just wanted to be a protest so people didn't have to either tick con or not vote
But as he talked to people on doorstop he found more and more unsatisfied with conservatives.byhen come election day he got 60% of the vote, support for the con has collapsed. He now has found himself going ot district council meetings and in a coalition of power as the council swung to lib-lab-green as many other seats had similar results.
That's what I'm saying there was a lot of party loyalty here, until con fucked up COVID and then had a leader that lasted shorter than a supermarket lettuce and even still doubled the cost of a mortguage with atrocious budget.
Similar in the us didn't a few states turn blue in the last election that you never would have thought of, like Arizona or Georgia and even texas on the move left.
I think it's a mix of things. I agree a lot of people don't participate in the primaries and they really should, but I'd also stress the importance of elevating the quality of the candidates we have. I don't believe any of the primary candidates right now have any idea what it's like to live in the USA as an "average" person. For starters, the average age of US citizens is 39, but the average age of the 3 current candidates is 74, with each of them being a minimum of 30 years older than the average American. I am not trying to promote ageism in any way, but I would really prefer if we had leadership that was less removed time-wise. I just don't personally believe that someone at 70 or 80 has any reasonable idea what it's like to be an American in the 30-40 age range right now -- their experiences with that age come from a time prior to the advent of cellular telephones, social media, personal computing technology, etc.
On top of that, even if you look past the age gap, the choices we have so far really don't instill great confidence.
RFK Jr is an admitted openly vocal anti-vax believer and also a vocal science denier (he still promotes belief in the link between vaccines and autism which has been systemically dis-proven), neither of which are popular positions to the left and will likely cost him votes. Biden has a low approval rating and a lot of Democrat voters don't see him as a strong or effectual president, but he's likely to get the nomination because he previously beat Trump and seems to be the defacto "if you're voting against Trump instead of voting for someone, vote for him" nominee. Marianne Williamson is at least a fresh, non-dynastic face in the political race with a reasonable track record as an independent, but because she'd been an independent until 2019 and because she's female there's a subsection of voters who will adamantly refuse to vote for her regardless of her political stance, making her unlikely to win the nomination over Biden.
I really hope that we start to see greater candidate diversity in the future and I agree that it starts with showing up to vote, I just wish we had candidates that felt more representative of the party ideals and also of our overall population than what we're getting now.
This goes back to not voting in every election. Groups that invest (money, time, votes) on local races (city council, school board) have a greater variety to pick when one of these people goes on to higher office (state-level, county-level) and then goes on to federal office.
The primaries are already too late - it's all about the local races.
You can't reduce all of society's problems to one source. We need to improve the lives of everyone, and we don't do that by ignoring the plight of minority groups. We can accomplish more than one good at a time.
Abortion should be legal and available to all women, that said, around 40% of them are done for economic reasons: …biomedcentral.com/…/1472-6874-13-29
Hence the issue is greatly exacerbated by our capitalist dystopia.
I don’t think I need to l source the economic growth incentive for exploiting undocumented immigrant labor they invite, while at the same time propagandizing half the country to hate them so they don’t gain social footing to get fair pay.
Climate change, hmmm…
Collapse of the nuclear family and birth rate, hmmm…
K-12 educational collapse due to tax breaks for a certain economic class in almost every state, hmmm…
Higher ed being bastardized from a societal necessity to a for profit indentured servant factory, hmmm…
Food deserts and urban decay from big box stores killing main street to eliminate threats and then pulling out of those neighborhoods once succeeding leaving nothing but abandoned disaster areas, hmmm…
I’m sure there are some national problems that aren’t caused by, substantially exacerbated by, or intentionally stoked for division by our owner class through their captured governments and bully pulpit, but without addressing our rigged economy and the wealth class gaining more hard power year after year, I’m sorry but it’s deck chairs by comparison.
I'm a bit puzzled by this response, to be honest. Yes, there are economic factors in many issues facing our society. However, the causes of abortion are not the same as access to it. And I notice you left out issues that are extremely pressing or even existential to many people, like inequities in policing, medicine (I don't mean access to medicine, I mean inequities in treatment and research), higher ed, as well as denial of rights to self determination for Transgender people and erosion of civil rights for LGBTQ people across the country. Some of these have economic components, but none can be completely solved by economic means.
Of course we need to fix our broken economic system. The inequalities in wealth and the stranglehold that the capital class has on our economy and government are a dire problem. But to tell minorities who are also struggling in many ways that those struggles are a distraction is unconscionable. We can help each other, we don't have to reduce the struggle to make a better world down to a single factor, and to do so will just create more inequalities when we fail to consider the needs to groups besides our own.
Is there some reason that we can't work to have a more equitable society racially and economically? It's not a zero sum game, we can care about and accomplish more than one thing at a time...
How would one sustainably protect/save the Jews (and all the other victimized groups) without first dismantling the Nazi regime?
Sure you can free this camp and that camp without marching on Berlin, but if the machine, the source that propagates it and maintains it remains intact, you’re addressing a symptom of the primary cause and they’ll just build more camps.
If you resolve one social wedge, they’ll stoke another in it’s place through the government they fully captured decades ago. Why do you think they’re actively unresolving decades settled resolutions through their Federalist Society judges?
Practiced insatiable Greed that rises to a level that becomes dangerous to society, that makes you more powerful than your single vote, that lets you buy your own regulatory bodies and inform the laws that are supposed to regulate you for the public good needs to be disallowed/criminalized. Without that, it’s a never ending game of division wedge whackamole, and you only need to understand who that benefits, the modern masters/profiteers/“job creators.”
An economy is supposed to be a tool to better distribute good and services for the benefit of a society, ie the people in it. Our society lives in service to, and is often told we need to make sacrifices for, our beloved 🌈economy. We’re doing it backwards, we are being played, it’s so obvious that it burns.
I'm just going to quote the comment that you are replying to, since you don't seem to have read it.
Is there some reason that we can’t work to have a more equitable society racially and economically? It’s not a zero sum game, we can care about and accomplish more than one thing at a time…
I don't agree that the sole cause of racial inequity is economic. If you only address the economic factors, then you will still be left with an unjust society. Again, what I am saying is that we can do more than one thing at a time.
To address your analogy, what you're proposing would be like marching on Berlin and leaving the camps in place, and just assuming that the folks in the will be fine once you overthrow the Nazis without actually doing the work to make sure that is the case. In reality, allied forces liberated the camps in the process of marching toward Berlin. That is what I am trying to say. We need to dismantle all of the machinery of oppression, not just the economic parts.
Edit: This probably came across as unnecessarily combative. I'm going to take a step back from this thread for a while. Ya'll stay nice.
For all the camps we’ve freed that get unfreed, abortion, civil rights, on and on, We NEVER seem to get around on marching on Berlin. In fact, Berlin has has been reinforcing its walls and turrets unopposed for over 50 years. They do make so many jobs after all. We hate the camps, but ignore the ones that commission them.
Sorry, in my mind forgetting about race problems meant that everyone stopped being racist and shit. The economic inequalities associated with race wouldn't disappear overnight, but they would eventually go away since social safety nets would obviously benefit the poorest people the most. But basically that flip comment was imagining a world where everyone really was colorblind.
No worries. And yeah, in a world where everyone magically had no conscious or unconscious bias, I suppose that by fixing economic inequality we would eventually address most other inequities associated with race. And that's nice to think about.
But I don't think I have to tell you that we don't live in that world, so the bias (conscious and unconscious) remains, and the systemic inequities also remain.
And it's fine to imagine a better world, but if there are folks arguing that actually, addressing the plight of minorities is a distraction from the more important "class war" and that winning that fight will magically fix everything else, your comment comes across as more of the same.
Reducing economic disparities will help solving racial inequalities but it won't solve them on its own. In the US there are so many racial disparities baked into the system we'd also need to looking into school funding reform, policing reform, prison reform and zoning reform as well. All of those institutions are built on explicitly racist foundations.
Exactly. Even if the real villain was capitalism all along (spoiler: it is), we can't abandon all of these battles along the way in hopes of winning the war in the end. The fight will take generations and we need to win ground on multiple fronts to have any hope of real, honest to goodness, change.
Not to mention K-12 that isnt in literal ruin, so underfunded that becoming a teacher, what should be one of society’s most revered professions, is a life on the edge of poverty. Proof positive that we choose to actively sabotage the future in the name of increasing the next quarterly earnings call for Wall Street sociopaths. How about our tent cities in every major city filled with our beaten, hopeless brothers and sisters our society throws away like garbage for the crime of not being effective enough capital batteries.
I could get into other stuff but there’s just too fucking much. Almost all of which stems from allowing insatiable greed to fester and metastasize until it became an aspirational trait and core value in the US. Now half the peasants dream in vain of being in the Oligarch class (good luck class traitors) instead of condemning and dismantling such a class.
The Gorden Geckos/Mr Potters/Ebenezer Scrooges were elevated and deified and allowed to run a muck here and warp our nation and increasingly the world to their cancerous, antisocial vision, and everyone outside of the owner class lost, even most who are their most zealous defenders. The real people these cautionary villains reflected used to be seen correctly as the deeply broken, deranged, selfish people they are.
We the people kill ourselves laboring to enrich people that don’t even see us as human beings with intrinsic value outside of capital generation. Every other conflict is a sideshow by comparison. Rant over sorry.
Race shouldn't be a consideration in whether to admit a particular student. But it should be used on an ongoing basis to ensure that the admission process is applied fairly.
Then, if it's determined that there's a racial bias in admissions, the root cause should be analyzed and corrected. Are students of one race better prepared academically? That's a problem that needs to be fixed at the high school level (or earlier). If you admit students who aren't prepared for college-level courses, you either have to spend resources on remedial classes, or have a lot of students from that race drop out.
Are students of one race more able to pay? If we want everyone to have the same chance at education regardless of background, maybe college should be fully government-funded.
That’s a problem that needs to be fixed at the high school level (or earlier).
What ability does a private university like Harvard have to affect the equity of primary or secondary education across the entire country? This sounds good, but who is doing the fixing? The same people who are stripping away the ability for colleges and universities to address inequity by considering it in their admissions policies are also strip mining public education. Maybe AA was a bandaid but ripping off the bandaid because it would be better to fix the injury, but having no ability or will to fix the injury, just means that now you're bleeding all over the place.
Reminder, the framers were imperfect products of their time, many of whom owned slaves, suggested landowners be the only class allowed to vote, and created a flawed document that, while ahead of its time a quarter millenia ago in the age of gunpowder muskets and speed of horse communication, blue screened windows 95 style a long time ago in the face of modern scale and structural societal change.
20 more years of this SCOTUS in all likelihood. That's what 4 years of Trump got us, and DeSantis's nominees for Florida's SCOTUS make Trump's nominees look like level headed centrists. Unless we get big Democratic majorities, then maybe there's a chance at SCOTUS expansion.
Remember it's not enough to just vote in the general, participate in your primaries too and encourage your friends and family to do the same for both federal and state/local office. The people who are most eager to right these wrongs quickly and through drastic action are usually the underdogs for their nominations. Removing Republicans in favor of Democrats will help most of the time regardless, but how much it helps depends on which Democrats we are electing. It's the difference between slowing the bleeding for 2 years and actual meaningful change.
Biden will sign a new Judicial Act if Congress puts one in front of him so don't worry about that or how wishy washy he might sound in the meantime. He may be lukewarm on SCOTUS expansion in hypothetical discussion, but when the paper is on his desk, he'll sign it. But it's up to us to give him a Congress that would do it and state governments that will sue to put cases back in front of a relegitimized SCOTUS after the fact.
The odds of Thomas or Alito making it another decade are not high; Democrats continuously holding the WH or the Senate until one of them dies is difficult, but not impossible. (they're favored in the presidential race in 2024 and probably 50-50 in 2028, they'll probably lose the Senate in 2024 but have a number of pickup opportunities in the following two cycles).
Y’all are in here acting like the world is ending. The Supreme Court just said “No, the Constitution makes clear that you can’t use that specific tool. Use another”.
It did NOT say, for instance: “you can never implement any policy whose outcome is a student body whose racial diversity reflects that of the society”. Just that the policy can’t achieve that outcome by approving or denying students based on their race. You think there’s not room to move within that?
I support the intention behind affirmative action, and I want to live in a world where race predicts as little as possible about your life, but I can’t disagree with Roberts when he says AA is discrimination on the basis of race. And I can’t argue with anyone who says this kind of discrimination is not constitutional (when federal authority OR funding is involved).
And you’ll find me on the left side of most SCOTUS decisions, but I don’t buy the arguments from the dissenting justices, specifically that the court is obliged to keep allowing an unconstitutional practice in order to (my paraphrasing) keep the racial mix of our future leaders balanced. I understand what they mean when they say that, and I agree diversity is important in leaders. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to make this happen.
the latent thing here is that nobody cares about racial admissions at mid and lower tier schools. they only give a f about access to harvard and the ilk. because money and power and status.
and sad how so much of our 'leadership' is from these prestige factories instead of actaully being diverse.
truth is the asian/blacks/hispanic going to harvard etc. are also going to be from wealthy/elite families.
What a massive win for Asian Americans! They'll finally be allowed to apply to universities and jobs across the nation without facing legal systemic racial discrimination. I'm surprised by the negativity in here. It's 2023. It's time to end systemic racial discrimination in America.
Affirmative action is a counterbalance to the systemic discrimination already inherent to society. If you remove it, you're deepening systemic discrimination.
those in power what more systematic discrimination and more inequality. not less. they don't want to make the world a better place, they simple what more of the world for themselves.
affirmative action is see as 'theft' by minories and underrepresented peoples from rich white kids and asian kids.
i was a scholarship student form a lower class family at an elite school. i had more than one fellow student spit/scream at me when they found out I had 'stolen' my seat at the uni from one of their rich kid friends. i also had professors who refused to interact with me when they found out.
Racism is never justified. Even if you think you have a really good reason to do it. Especially then. All racists think they have a really good reason to be racist. They don't.
Racism exists whether or not affirmative action does. Racism has a worse impact if affirmative action does not exist.
All you're doing through this argument is sacrificing those affected by systemic racism so that you can keep your hands ideologically clean. Sure, more people are going to grow up in poverty due to their race than otherwise would, but at least you didn't have to ask yourself any hard questions, right?
Would Asians finally be less discriminated against in college admissions now? Your scores are all perfect but too bad we're full in the list of Asian admissions
Clarence Thomas probably considers this his shining achievement. He has had a personal vendetta against affirmative action forever, despite benefitting from it himself.
@pizza_rolls@anji Pulling that shit out of your ass, I see. Justice Thomas never benefitted from affirmative action. It, in fact, hurt him with his chances. According to his memoir “My Grandfather’s Son” pg 74-75 „As much as it stung to be told that I’d done well in the seminary despite my race, it was far worse to feel that I was now at Yale because of it.״
He had to prove himself even more because teachers had the bias of affirmative action towards him being black.
When Clarence Thomas was accepted to Yale Law School in 1971, the school’s stated goal was for students of color like him to make up about 10% of its incoming class. It was part of the nationwide affirmative action movement in which schools and workplaces actively recruited women and people of color into arenas where they had long been underrepresented.
@pizza_rolls@anji PBS's quote doesn't really tell me much aside that affirmative action existed in Yale. It doesn't say whether Justice Thomas benefited from it.
Behind the Bastards did 4 episodes on him in which I learned far more than I wanted about him and still don't understand his philosophy. I don't know if he is understandable.
It also insanely benefits colleges, and the people that afford to do so are insanely influential - so its not at all hard to imagine why it's still legal and normal.
Honestly I'd like to have stronger feelings about this than I do, but I don't think AA was doing much good before and I don't think getting rid of it will change much now; the elite schools are going to find a way to maintain something like the same racial mix without running afoul of this new precedent (Harvard has already said as much).
And if you're trying to correct racial injustice through education, tweaking elite college admissions are wayyyy less important than, say, doing something for the 74% of 8th graders who are not meeting standards in math; if you could burn Harvard to the ground in exchange for reducing that number by 10%, on balance the country would be better off.
Tie college admissions to a random, unique identifier, and make it as blind to subjective opinion as possible. It could go through an intermediary that does have the personal information, but that gives the universities access to that identifier and only non-identifying information. Ask for motivational letters without as little personal information as possible (or no motivational letter at all), no picture, no name, no sex, financial status, nothing that's identifiable to the people who have to evaluate the candidates.
The issue with this approach is that it further entrenches gaps that are already there. The best predictor of economic outcome is zip code. That's because schools are funded by local property tax. Live in a wealthier area, get better schools. Better schools lead to a better outcome. Schools in poorer districts stay poorer. It's a system that is self perpetuating.
Replacing affirmative action with something that is strictly income based could help but that ignores other systemic biases that are based on race rather that income.
I feel like if we're ending affirmative action we should also put in place more restrictions on legacy admissions which is just affirmative action for dumb, rich kids and represents a much bigger chunk of students than affirmative action ever did.
IIRC California has been this way for some time now, and it did result in more Asian Americans getting admitted than before. The problem I see brought up most often is that there hasn't been any real distinction made between AAPI groups (Indian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, etc) and some have felt left out or pushed aside after they thought they won big.
because poor peoples parents won't/can't donate to the school.
schools are in the business of making money and selling social prestige.
not educating people. that ship said in the 70s/80s like so much else in this country. most elite schools are finishing schools/country clubs where the education is entirely secondary to the social aspect of hobnobbing with other elites.
and as someone who was 'lifted up' by education... let me tell you, the social elites who run these places HATE you. They do not want poor people infiltrating their exclusive community or 'stealing' their resources. They see financial aid and affirmative action as theft from their legacy.
the people who run the school are also from the elite classes. the entire thing is a bait and switch for lower class kids.
This affects white people too. Asian students are often discriminated against when applying for colleges. I imagine that we’ll be seeing a lot of Asian students displacing both white and brown students as a result of this.
Add comment