Good article at the mini thread's end...
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
"Need" is the wrong word. That's misleading.
If you are asking for an explanation of the facts then that is easy. Asians as a group (which is problematic as others have pointed out) have higher test scores on average. Combine that fact with the fact that some groups do not need as high test scores to earn entry like legacy admissions, donor advantages, athletic scholarships and the result is the statistic you quote.
And to go back to other people's points, Asian immigrants are probably the most socioeconomically diverse of any minority and it can be problematic to put them all into one bucket.
And you became an oblivious priviledged sad man anyway. What is worse because you forget your way
Dick contest? I immigrated to 8 countries and in all of them i did ok working a much hours as you in many ocasions. Nit in an offices but construction and as a server. Trust me. Much more demanding than in an office like you. Basically because is where i ended too and i would not change it any day.
Studied partially a bachellors due to exchange and also and MBA in another country. Didnt crushed it but did ok. Learned 3 more languages besides my 2 at age +30 along the way (not as a minor immigrant where everything is possible) and never ever ever would make fun of someone that learns another language because i know how hard it is. And never ever ever i would stop asking for what is fair because i know how hard it is even knowing that i am a priveleged person from starters to my end knowing that i was born in a middle class family . But at least i am not and obvlivious one that only sees the finances and not many other connotations that dont affect him because his empathy is unexistant to other collectives
And definitely i am not a petty sad man
LOLZ OK - I didn't call you privileged, you did w/out knowing a thing about me. So I shared a few facts, but I'm not interested in this pointless debate, so have a nice life.
Shared some facts when i called you out for the petty language sad event wheb i was trying to have a conversation about race negative-positive discrimination. You took the petty and laughing smilies route, sad man
And no worries. I have a nice life
There are a few decent points here but his premise is misleading and a bit deceptive.
For instance, when he brings up the education example of Cook County, IL, his thesis doesn't hold. Cook County still had 1/4 of voters vote for Trump and it's safe to say that percentage is more concentrated in the wealthier districts in the county. Probably something like 30-40% considering that in 2020, in the State Attorney race, the Dem candidate only received 54% of the vote, the GOP candidate 39%, and the Libertarian candidate 6%. But let's for the sake of argument pretend that all the wealthy districts that voted down sharing school money equally have that ~75-25% split. What he ignores is that 25% of GOP supporters still vote on the education plan. And probably 99%+ of the Republicans living in Cook County are going to oppose sharing property taxes equally for all schools across the county. So even in this very favorable scenario only about 1/3 of Democratic voters have to vote with the Republicans to vote down the educational sharing policy. So even if a majority of the Democrats supported sharing educational money, that minority of Republicans still has enough power to vote down that proposal with just a little Dem support. Sure, you can point to a smaller minority of Democrats as being "hypocrites" but somehow the Republicans get a free pass here despite them very much being a factor in stopping that progressive policy.
For housing, he hints at the homeless problem but then the single example is Palo Alto, one of the wealthiest areas in the country. Even if it's voting Biden, it's an area that would be considered very socially liberal, but economically conservative (tech bros). Then he mentions the fact that California did get rid of most single-family zoning over a year ago. Yes, it should have happened far sooner but it still happened and there are still lots of reforms necessary to combat a problem that goes far beyond just single-family zoning. The homeless problem results from greater economic conditions that yes, the GOP has played a very massive role in creating. Building a handful more duplexes in some rich areas like Palo Alto is not going to do anything to curb the homeless problem. Much greater policies need to happen and the GOP's solution of just hiring more police to push the homeless out of their neighborhood or arrest them certainly isn't helping in any way.
Overall, this guy is just cherry-picking a few examples that serve his edgy claim (for instance cherry picking Washington for taxes and not California) and not providing a deeper look at the context. He does have a few worthwhile points, of course, there are definitely some affluent blue voters that aren't as selfless as their Pride and Ukraine Facebook backgrounds might hint at, but his overall thesis is not really supported by the evidence (that the problem is "blue states" and not the GOP for the most part).
You would've really benefitted from that video in the productivity wankstains thread about manipulating time and space to allow yourself 21 days a week.
Last edited:
Amazing that the three recent tumultuous recent decisions the court decided didn’t have a plaintiff among them - well, technically they did have the website designer but no gay person actually contacted her for her services, no Asians, & no one injured by the loan debt relief.
Last edited:
What could possibly go wrong?
His overall point is that Dems have failed their voters pretty terribly in some basic areas like education and housing. Yes they talk a good game, have a great program in paper but in reality they have done nothing to enact their plan - and they've got no onw blame but themselves (as GOP doesn't hold any power). His overall point is that liberals talk a good game but they're some nasty nimby's - and it's hard to argue with that. And this is the NYT - not some hatchet job at Breitbart.
I think you're nitpicking - the only valid argument against his thesis is that because states like Calif are so liberal and welcoming to almost everyone, it's so hard to find solutions for everyone.
No idea what you're referring to, but thanks. I guess.
the kid who got affirmative action overturned isn’t even american. he is from canada and a member of their conservative party. the irony in people defending this douchebag is really something.
We could be witnessing a planned / intentional lurch of the SC into becoming a legislative entity as well as a judicial one, an entity that is controlled by dark money & taps into the culture wars as that’s what their billionaire benefactors ultimately want.
These recent decisions should have a chilling effect on us & not be defended to the extreme that some are doing.
the only solution would be to expand the supreme court. but biden has already said he is against the idea. so we are pretty fecked.
You havent read that thread? It's amazing!
What’s funny about this is the suggested correction is wrong, since 4bars would then be saying “you are obvious privilege/pointing this out makes you obvious privilege” which makes no sense
Yup. Obviously i meant obliviously, but i let it to the sad man that is crashing it in everything he does and making fun of others proficiency in languages even if his corrections dont make sense in the context
Very disappointing we won't expand the SC justices to the same number of circuit courts as was done in the past.
The Supreme Court, made up of life time appointees picked for political reasons is another stupid and undemocratic thing about America.
Reminds me a bit of the Ephors in the movie 300.
Reminds me a bit of the Ephors in the movie 300.
Wouldn’t they run the risk of inflating the court, as in President Trump could just expand it further in 2026? And then President Newsom to do the same in 2030 and so on?
The SC should not be a liftime/till retirement gig
Of course it would. Which is why it is a stupid and no one important is strongly advocating for that.
A judge by default should be 100% neutral to everything especially the case they had at hand.
It's baffling to me that SC judges could already be labeled as left or right even way before they're appointed
It's baffling to me that SC judges could already be labeled as left or right even way before they're appointed
Yeah, it is quite stupid to be fair. And for some lower judicary positions, judges are chosen based on elections which is also very stupid.
Assuming it's legit... all one needs to do is replace Justice with Socialist... boom.
2024 GE is massive as another SCOTUS or two could drop dead or retire, more likely so for the aging conservatives that might step down during a GOP presidency.
If GOP win, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Thomas and Alito stepping down. I think Sotomayor has some health issues so it wouldn’t be bad if she steps down if Dems win.
Then as you said, it is always possible that someone might check out. If Dems win there is some chance that it might go again to 4-4-1. Worst case is something happening to Sotomayor and Roberts deciding to retire under a GOP president, in which case it goes to 7-2.
It's almost like you didn't actually read my post and just repeat the guy's thesis which is misleading and not accurate. Conservatives do have power, as the example with education shows. It's interesting how if 99% of conservatives vote "NIMBY" and only 35% of liberals vote NIMBY the narrative becomes "those liberals are nasty nimbys". Why ignore how the minority conservatives still have a lot of power to inhibit change? I guess that doesn't fit your narrative or the guy's in the video. Of course, Democrats could do better but the cherry-picking and absolving the conservatives of any responsibility makes his thesis invalid, to put it nicely.
Or like homelessness, the problem is clearly systemic and results from many national policies enacted by the GOP over generations (with the help of some corporate dems of course) but the problem isn't created just by Newsom. You could also argue that some of the Dems in power in California aren't exactly progressive - for instance, the California energy crisis of 2000-01 wasn't caused by liberal Democrats in California enacting liberal policy. Corporate Democrats caused it, like that scumbag Antonio Villagarosa, by taking lobbyist money from out-of-state interests and enacting inherently broken conservative policies like energy de-regulation. Homelessness and housing crisis likewise isn't caused by liberal/progressive policies at the state level, it's caused by deregulation, stripping the social safety net for decades, and free market policies on a national level. It is fair to say that Newsom and some Democrats have not found solutions to homelessness and housing yet. But it also has to be acknowledged that conservatives are even further away from finding solutions and have offered nothing to fix the problems. At least Newsom is trying, albeit slowly.
But hey, don't look deeper into issues, just watch your 15-minute video and put your head in the sand if it suits your anti-Democrat narrative.
Last edited:
Dems needs to hold the senate, otherwise republicans will block any and all nominations from Biden, or any other dem president, for as long as they hold control over it.
Its silly that the farmlands, where people dont live, essentially decides what the supreme court looks like, while the cities never gets a say.
Wouldn't that mean the current winner of the election can have support for his policies, like in a normal democracy?
This is fascism, plain and simple.
This is fascism, plain and simple.
Such a strange mix of racism/fascism and points that are quite progressive.
So much contradiction in it too. It's hilarious.
Secure a white majority.
Equal rights for the white majority
2% ceiling on Jewish representation
Declare Israel a rogue state (although I kind of agree but not for the same reasons they do)
But an end to racial conflict
Yeah because nothing screams of equality and fairness like capping the Jews to. 2% representation and securing a white majority. Ffs
But..
Nationalise.healthcare and nationalise defence companies and contractors to stop war profiteering....
Isn't that....
Socialism?
fecking clowns. They really are.
Secure a white majority.
Equal rights for the white majority
2% ceiling on Jewish representation
Declare Israel a rogue state (although I kind of agree but not for the same reasons they do)
But an end to racial conflict
Yeah because nothing screams of equality and fairness like capping the Jews to. 2% representation and securing a white majority. Ffs
But..
Nationalise.healthcare and nationalise defence companies and contractors to stop war profiteering....
Isn't that....
Socialism?
fecking clowns. They really are.