@JonKramer By that logic the smallest minorities need to have the largest perportional representation... We need more eskimos in congress!!!

Racial politics is always a failure, the only solution is to stop giving merit points to people for their race.

@freemo , I agree with you in principle, but disagree in practice, because we have a whole bunch of bigots who win elections. I think we need to address that issue before we should complain about addressing the historic abuse of minorities. Ranked choice voting? That will undercut party power...

@JonKramer And how does picking a piggot with melanin fix that problem? Again I wouldnt care if these were top choices, they arent.

@freemo , because they are most likely to have a person history, experience, with the problems that face the lowest castes in our society, and possibly the most sympathy for them. It's just the odds.

@JonKramer Ignoring their actual performance and assuming their skin color gives them better odds despite their history to the contrary is absolutely horrible logic.

"Yea the guy might literally be hitler and killed off an entire race of people, but he is also 1/4 cheroke so lets elect him anyway, odds are he will be good on civil rights!"

@freemo , I understand your argument, but the guys who advocate for Hitler were not on that list.

@JonKramer The people he has selected int he past have had horrific history in terms of social justice.. while they arent hitler the point is the same, if they already have been abusive to minorities with their past actions it is no exuse to choose them simply because of their race.

@freemo , EVERYONE on that list has either created a horrible record, or otherwise been abusive. The ones who are on that list who have brown skin got there because the current system has required them to be 'tough on crime'. There is no avoiding this. We can dismiss all minorities who have not had to make their mark this way, and maybe let the next generation address the problem... But that just perpetuates appointing those white men who didn't have to prove they were tough on crime by being outspoken jerks to their own.

It's a tough choice.

@JonKramer No it goes WAY beyond "tough on crime"

Kamala for example has a very long history of opposing bills that would hold cops accountable and even actively told her staff not to persue **any** cases where police shot and killed unarmed people, causing many murdering cops to get off.

That, as one among a long list of examples, is the exact opposite of being "touch on crime".. thats about giving cops a free pass to murder... even then its a small blip in a long list of horrendous decisions by her. We see those same patterns in anyone Biden seems to pick, its disgusting.

@freemo ya, Harris is awful. Zero doubt. She shouldn't be on that list... but she "was that little girl" too. And being on that list, Jerome or Shnikwa is more likely to viscerally understand the issues.

@JonKramer yea given her past thats not an acceptable reason... Having been abused, when you are also an abuser, doesnt (and shouldnt) qualify you. There should be only one thing that qualifies you for a position where human rights are important to our future.... a good track record on human rights.

@freemo like I said, I agree in principle. But a history of being punched in the face by society should bump someone up a bit on those lists. And can reasonably be a deciding factor.

That being said, I doubt Biden is qualified to make these choices. I want to see some outside agencies weighing in.

@JonKramer if the logic is thst being punched in the face makes you more sympathetic to people being punched in the face, then why not just look at if they are sympathetic directly... if someone clearly isnt synpathetic to people being punched in the face, thrn why give them extra credit for being ounched in the face... the logic makes no sense.

Tbis broken logic shoukd be challenged at every level. For example if the history of racism caused more black people to be poor, instead of helping black people help poor people. Its far more effective and addresses the problem directly and fairly by default.

@freemo , It's just playing the odds. I am not sure what objectively can be done to address 400 years of history. The system has too much momentum. I don't think there is any objectively more efficient way to address the problem of racism, except with "reverse" racism. At some point in the future, there may be. But with current conditions, I just don't see an alternative. This might explain my position a bit better:

https://jemartisby.substack.com/p/the-letter-from-white-clergymen-that

@freemo , and to make it more clear, my position that is, is the King was too soft. I am more of a Huey Newton fan.

@JonKramer Why play the odds when you already know the mechanics? Why should I have to play the odds and guess at who is likely to have a good/shitty track record when i can literally just look at the track record?

@freemo , because the game is already fixed, and we don't get to stop playing. So cheat a bit, to make it more fair.

@JonKramer im not sure how "playing the odds" when you actually know a persons history is makign it more fair... None of this logic makes any sense to me.

That said it sounds like we are at a standstill, and that is ok too.

@freemo Text is not the best way to convey complex issues. Ya, it's OK to disagree, as long as everyone is arguing in good faith, and I don't even need to assume you are.

@freemo , also, just making those lists means you are qualified to do the job. We don't need (or want) to demand the manager of the local Kroger has a PhD in economics.