True, but you’ve got to celebrate the small victories.

Biden won Colorado handily anyway, by double digits. It’s not really in play so it’s a symbolic victory anyway, but it’s nice to hear a state Supreme Court officially declare him an insurrectionist AND reinforce the fact that the president holds an office in the federal government and that comes with a responsibility to follow the constitution, contradicting all of Trump’s legal positions.

Yes, it may be reversed by the Supreme Court, but my take is running elections is a state’s responsibility so the federal court has no standing, and I think they understand that whatever precedent they set could be exploited by the current administration to maintain power…if it’s not illegal for Trump to call for an overthrow of democracy, it’s not illegal for Biden…and they likely recall the numerous times Trump has hinted that he doesn’t feel we need a Supreme Court anymore and he would hobble or disband it once he’s “dictator on day one”….the newest horrifying MAGA slogan…so they have little incentive to get involved.

Lol…says the totally honest guy who still says “buy Tesla, it only plunged 20% so far this year” (when reality is it plunged 32% this year).
Says the guy who takes Elon’s word as gospel….no way he has incentive to exaggerate or lie about his success.
Says the guy who still thinks the semi truck is coming, and will revolutionize trucking (despite having 1/3 the cargo capacity and limited range).
The guy who said Tesla is expanding exponentially on the same day Elon announced a 10% reduction and that he’s burning through billions every week and can’t get anywhere near full production capacity, not even near profitability yet.
Says the guy who claims the Tesla truck will corner the market but doesn’t know it’s delayed indefinitely if not cancelled because it could never compete with Ford.

Says the guy who repeats every far right lie he hears.

Then he says don’t listen to professionals or sales numbers, get your information from Tesla fan boys online exclusively.

Then he says this new modular battery tech is old obsolete tech like a blackberry.

Tesla is far less likely to make it through the decade, they were the big fish in a puddle, now they’re a small fry in a little pond that just had the tide break through and now there are sharks in there with it.

I’m guessing you didn’t watch the whole thing.

please. communist?

think about this: one of the cons of communism is if one person is getting all the benefits of working as not working - incentive is nixed.

w/all the mergers of segments of the business world - oil, media suppliers, etc - the effect mirrors communism. w/o serious competition, these companies have less incentive to improve products, increase efficiency, or reduce consumer costs.

to wit: most of the conservative policies are closer to communism than ideas like trust-busting, fair employee compensation, reasonable taxation for high earners, etc.

most of the 'progressive' ideas would spur capitalism, thus the blue is more about the green than the red is about keeping markets stable and healthy.

prefer the idea of regulated capitalism over death through fascism.

what led to '08?

anyway...if you're money is on Tesla*, good luck. good to see a body putting their money where their mouth is. and great to see you in favor of moving away from fossil fuels. investing in the future.

if we can get there.

FYI: interesting article about the marketing of tesla
https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/tesla-masculinity-study?utm_source=digg
from the skinny on the CEO, it is an absolute match.


BTW: keeping up w/the Jan 6 spankings? hard to buy the love of a loon, versus the safety of a nation. shakes a person to the core. all those serene conservatives w/o one iota of spine. if this is your idea of quality leadership - no Tesla stock is gonna fill the void of losing a homeland


*what did E.M. do for Twitter? taught some folks the meaning of 'cozener'.

I'm OK with mask off to those fully vaccinated for 2 weeks (so the wearer get full protection) and governments and businesses figure out as much incentive to give to those vaccinated to bring up the herd community thing as much as possible. Nothing works better than free-stuff incentives.

Me, in Canada, living in its largest city, with infection rates at its most severe but vaccinations rate near the bottom of the barrel in the G7, I still couldn't get my 1st shot yet... vaccine hesitancy is such as cruel joke for too many in the world.

https://videosift.com/video/Why-You-Always-Lying

Nice non sequitor, but you've got your racist trope wrong....it was never 99%. Liar.

In 2012 it was reportedly 91% black on black murders and dropping, and at the same time > 85% of whites murdered were killed by whites. The minor difference is easily explained by red lining, the real estate trick famously used by Trump of denying rental or home sales to black people, forcing black people to only live in certain "black" areas while whites may mix with any cultures they wish and live where they choose. You're just making up racist statistics to excuse your racist positions....again.

Edit: add the same amount to white on white crime that you dishonestly added to black on black crime and whites are the problem, far more likely to kill another white than a black man is to kill another black man. Turnabout is fair play...nothing is more dangerous to the white than Republican government policies and moronic and dishonest white liars like yourself. Fix the big issue of dishonest racist assholes and the Republican party will fade away.

Police killed many without shooting them, see George Floyd, so those are badly misleading statistics....and they still show a police murder rate of blacks at >1/2 that of whites even though there are 5 times more whites, because police are racist and shoot black people with far less provocation daily.....assume the unknowns are black, they shoot and murder more blacks at >5 times the per capita rate of whites. What was your point again?

And keep in mind, these are the statistics reported by police, and most don't report them. There is no national database of police shootings by design, the police don't want one and fought against every attempt to create one because they know how bad it would look, and they are on an honor system of 100% voluntary reporting by the same departments that cause them, departments with a huge incentive to lie and hide the truth, and a professional culture of lying to get what they want.

Cops are compensated and protected from accountability whether they do their jobs well or not. Unless there's an incentive to perform, why bother?

I would go hunting for the videos, but Biden has already stated that he fully plans to empower Beto to be his gun control 'czar'. Beto has already said that he absolutely is coming for "our" guns. He plans a forced turn in or buyback of all assault style weapons, presumably those also covered by laws that allow them under federal tax stamps (full auto).

In addition, Biden lists the following on his website as his plans:

1. Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection. (Only this is misleading. Do shoe manufacturers get sued if you kick someone in the face? Do knife manufacturers get sued if you stab someone? Do car manufacturers get sued when you get into an accident? No and neither do most other manufacturers. Putting this in place means that any time a gun is used in a crime, they can try to sue the manufacturer of that gun into non-existence. It doesn't even have to be an 'assault' weapon, any gun manufacturer is at risk. The only thing that wouldn't count is blackpowder guns since they aren't classed as firearms.)

2. Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons. (So this would be a perma ban on assault weapons and would also anticipate changes to circumvent the law. This would be the assault ban of 1994 on steroids.)

3. Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. (So even if he doesn't get Beto to push through a buy back, he can force owners of assault rifles to be subject to the EXTREMELY restrictive NFA. Not only that, but it's expensive and would be a tax on gun owners yearly.)

4. Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act. (Covered this already. But if this does go through, you likely won't be seeing me on here anymore as it will be a cold day in hell before I surrender my guns or pay the government to be allowed to own them.)

5. Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one. (Once you get this through, it is far easier to get legislation passed to cap how many guns a person can own total. Fuck that.)

6. Require background checks for all gun sales. Today, an estimated 1 in 5 firearms are sold or transferred without a background check. Biden will enact universal background check legislation, requiring a background check for all gun sales with very limited exceptions, such as gifts between close family members. This will close the so-called “gun show and online sales loophole” that the Obama-Biden Administration narrowed, but which cannot be fully closed by executive action alone. (I can deal with this, just means you need to go through an FFL.)

7. Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. (Not 100% on this one, but it isn't a deal breaker)

8. Enact legislation prohibiting an individual “who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission” from purchasing or possessing a firearm. (Felony yes, but that already exists. Misdemeanor, fuck no.)

9. Close the “Charleston loophole.” (yeah, no problem with this one)

10. End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts. (So if I want to build another AR15 I can't? Fuck that. You still have to get the primary receiver through or shipped to an FFL. Which means a background check every single time.)

11. Create an effective program to ensure individuals who become prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish their weapons. (I would be for this if it wasn't for the fact that it is one step away from the government outlawing guns. Once this mechanism is in place at a federal level, all that means is you are one vote away from having your guns seized.)

12. Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws. Extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws, enable family members or law enforcement officials to temporarily remove an individual’s access to firearms when that individual is in crisis and poses a danger to themselves or others. (Sounds good, but nobody is willing to state the guidelines that the family or LEO will have to follow. That means that it is completely up to family members and LEO's to decide what constitutes a 'crisis'. Bet you a lot of LEO's in protest states would red flag most protesters immediately if this law existed now in all states.)

13. Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs. (This is above and beyond the federal checks. This would mean any gun owner or potential owner would have to maintain and pay for a separate gun license. Also, it allows states and locales to decide what constitutes the requirements for the gun license. There are already some states doing this and you have to get permission to even own a gun from the sheriff or other official. Fuck that.)

14. Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns. (Are you fucking kidding me? What if the battery runs out, what if it gets hacked, or what if the government decides to flip a switch and shut them all down? I'll never agree to this.)

15. Require gun owners to safely store their weapons. Biden will pass legislation requiring firearm owners to store weapons safely in their homes. (IE, locked in a safe or partially disassembled, possibly a combination of both. Why bother having a gun for home defense if it can't be used without spending 5-10 minutes to make it available/functional?)

16. Stop “ghost guns.” (This is just stupid. 3d printed guns might be able to fire a few shots before reaching a critical failure. You can't 3d print a lower or upper receiver that matches a stock one. Yes, they made lowers for the original m-16s, but they swapped from those because they were shit. They broke constantly. And those weren't printed, they were molded from a tougher plastic. A 3d printed one is not nearly as strong. Either way, I don't care too much about this because it is a buzzword for non-gun people. Just like bumpstocks. You can still bump-fire a regular ar-15, the bumpstocks were just training wheels for idiots.)

Now he has a shitload more laws he wants to pass, but most of them I don't care too much about. I won't bother covering all of them. In any case, he is going to go after guns on a scale unseen to this point. If the dems get control of both houses, he will get these laws passed. Then the only hope is that SCOTUS votes them down as unconstitutional.

I won't vote for Trump, but I will be doing my part to maintain a split congress. Which means straight republican ticket other than Trump.

Newt,

This is in response to your comment on my statement about Biden needing to lose in '20.

I recently wrote this as a reply to one of my readers (I write under a number of different names in other places).:

Dear <name>,

>I took some time to absorb what you wrote. It's a lot to juggle. The Atlantic has an article in the July-August issue on the worst and best case scenario in CLO defaults. I'll read more.

I read the article you mentioned, and while it's certainly good, it also misses a very important point that explains the mess we're in: the collapse of Lehman and Bear-Stearns, while catastrophic in their own ways, were not the nightmare that caused the Fed to freak out in 2008 -- AIG was. Had AIG gone under and the counterparty default contracts triggered, we'd be on the barter system right now. We came within hours of not having an economy in the western world. The $700b ($.7t) the Fed coughed up to stop this from happening calmed the panic, but did nothing to resolve the underlying issues. These issues continued to compound during the 2011-2020 stock run-up and now we're at the point where the Fed is throwing trillions of dollars at every piece of bad debt they can find just to keep the whole thing from imploding into an economic black hole. It is important to note that in September '19, the credit markets started freezing because of the debt that was already on the books then, -before- CV-19 started rolling, and it took $3t just to get them unlocked again. Absolutely nothing has gotten better since then, and I would argue things have gotten dangerously worse.

In an odd coincidence, the NYT ran an article today about the looming bankruptcy crisis. They're calling for 30-60 days before things start imploding, but I'll stick to my estimate of ~90 days. There's some talk about extending the $600 benefits (we'll see) and chatter about another stimulus check, but that's kicking the can as well as telegraphing how bad things really are. When the Republicans are getting behind free money, you know we're in some uncharted territory. For all intents and purposes, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) -- the reason the Fed is backstopping debt and printing money like crazy -- is the hill the US economy will live or die on. Should the US dollar come unpegged as the world's de facto currency or should inflation begin (and there's already worrying signs this is happening), that's game over.

Please don't take anything I say as the Word of God; please do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Everything I've said is an opinion based on my education, experience and way of thinking. Your mileage may vary.

Here is the article I mentioned: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/business/corporate-bankruptcy-coronavirus.html -- might be paywalled, but clear your cookies for the NYT and you should be able to read it.


>Frankly, it's the physical danger in my area of the States that concerns me. There are the guns and bullying. During some BLM demonstrations in the Midwest, locals were standing around with semi-automatics. I drive a Prius for the fuel efficiency. Pick up trucks enjoy tailgating, trying to intimidate me. This behavior isn't going to change with a change of President but will get worse is we don't change. This ideological push to takeover the country instead of ruling by compromise started around the same time we came to the US in 1981, Reagan's first year. I was so shocked when I heard talk radio for the first time; this wasn't the country I had left in the 1970s.


And now we come to the giant pile of sweaty dynamite that's just waiting for the right shock to set it off. I could give you a prolonged lecture about how this all started in 1978 with California's Proposition 13, or how David Stockman's tragically prescient warnings were blatantly ignored, but Haynes Johnson does a far better job at this than I ever could in his 1991 book "Sleepwalking Through History", as does Kevin Phillips in 2006's "American Theocracy". Honestly, at this point, the prelude is academic. The reality of the situation is that a large swath of adult Americans are appalling ill-educated, innumerate and devoid of even the most basic critical-thinking skills. These people are now locked out of the Information Economy. They lack the most basic skills required to compete in the 21st century job market and thus will watch their standard of living sink into the abyss. These people are not blind to this fact because they're living with the reality of their situation every single day. They're totally without hope, cut off from all avenues of control over their own lives and they feel utterly abandoned by the very people who're supposed to be helping them. The reason you're seeing bullying and behavior like that is because these same people are totally removed from any avenues of recourse and the only people they can take their anger out on are people like you and me. Their anger is being stoked on a daily basis. FOX News and the GOP are experts at this and have a host of boogeymen to keep the anger from being pointed their way: ANTIFA, BLM (black Americans have always made a perfect target), "coastal elites" and, of course, Liberals.

Trump's election was a warning, not an outlier. Trump was the primal scream of these people and Liberals and the Democrats as a whole chose not to listen because they found the sound so abhorrent. The rage will only get worse and the number of people enveloped by this rage will only grow as economic conditions worsen. At this point, it no longer matters who wins in '20. Winning the election will be like winning the deed to the World Trade Center one second after the first jet hit. The damage has already been done and no steps are being taken to repair it; if anything, people are actively making it worse either through ideological blindness, deliberate malfeasance or outright stupidity. It took almost 50 years to get to this point and the endemic issues will not be undone in a single generation, much less a single election. Until the people who voted for Trump feel a sense of real hope, a sense of control over their lives and a genuine expectation of recourse for their grievances, they will keep right on voting for Trump, or people like him.

My unfortunate suspicion is that this country will rip itself to shreds long before those reforms are enacted.

Side note: the fundamental difference between the United States and Europe is that European history has forced the nations of Europe to live with the consequences of their actions. Not so the United States. Europe has suffered for her sins. Not so the United States. The two bloodiest wars in human history were fought on European soil. Not so the United States. The United States has never faced true suffering, nor has it ever had to live with the ramifications of its own actions. Both these facts are about to change and a nation whose character is built on a mythology of individual action and violence is going to have to face reality. The people of this nation are not prepared for this and they will not like it.

Second side note: many people are erroneously comparing the current situation to the Wiemar Republic. This is a lack of historical understanding. A more apt comparison would be to Spain in late 1935.


>As for re-opening, we could have gotten some control if the "leader" had simply donned a mask and used realistic thinking. People could go back to work more safely, wash hands, stay a certain distance. But his hubris led the way, so now we'll have a roller coaster for months and years that will affect the economy even more. France is a good comparison because they were unprepared also, having slashed the public healthcare budget for the last twenty years. But when they laid down the rules, troops patrolled the streets to be sure they were followed. So far, they've flattened the curve (for now), and used different economic incentives, such as paying part of employees' salaries to keep them employed.

At this point, the pace of re-opening is a difference between very bad and much worse. Had $3t been used to pay the yearly salary of every American, we could have saved lives and the economy, but we didn't. The history of 2020 will be littered with "what-ifs". However, the first thing you learn when studying history is that what-ifs are useless because things are what they are and you can't change that. It's already obvious we're going into a second wave. If previous pandemics are any indication of what's to come, this second wave will be many times worse than the first. The wait for a vaccine is indeterminate, but if we're going for herd immunity, ~70% of Americans will need to catch the virus. To date, ~1.5% have. If the US population is ~330 million, ~230 million will need to catch the virus. Call the mortality rate 2%, that means ~4.6 million Americans will die. That's a lot of dead Americans and grieving families.

Take care,

(my actual name)

Eventually. My brother was online before there was an internet, trading programs for his Apple 2 over the phone lines, and the web existed for years before the possibility of profit, and much longer before any profit was realised. The nerds (myself included) drove the expansion for quite a while, but I don't deny commerce has made it ubiquitous and fast. Companies want you to enjoy the experience of buying from them so you come back, so they have an incentive to continue funding advancements that benefit the market, making more potential customers.
There are many incentives not based on profit too, as you mentioned. I don't think it's an either/or equation.

Didn't iPhones basically create the smartphone market?

But.....Bcglorf said: Capitalism (or many unrelated civic freedoms) made science and progress possible. The implication is that without capitalism, science and progress are impossible.
Edit: my mistake, vil said that, not bcglorf.

Also, the video is about contradicting that exact contention.

No they aren't, because America isn't just "an economy based on capitalism", which you yourself pointed out. They all come from innovations in systems and inventions created through American socialism.

Again, pre '68, before America went the socialist route to advance computer sciences, not after. Yes, after we used a combination of socialism and capitalism, we were more successful. That's my point.

China is working on 6g, and nearly ready with 5g. America isn't. That cannot be simply because China stole our advancements since they're ahead of us. They also, as you've admitted, developed better (cheaper/faster) manufacturing methods both because of technological advancements and few or no regulations (which have caused them horrendous issues). Funny enough, removing the regulations for more profit at the expense of the workers/environment is capitalistic, not socialist.

Their 5G is better because it's 1)almost ready to deploy and 2) cheaper. Ours isn't ready for prime time yet, and has used billions in public funds to get where it is. The FCC also proposed a $20 billion fund to expand broadband (5g)....that's not capitalism.

Ahhh, switching topics, eh? I thought the topic is capitalism vs socialism as it relates to invention, not fascism. I'm not going to bite.

Ok, personal enrichment is one of many incentives that drive invention, but invention happens without that incentive daily.

Once again, necessity is the mother of invention, not capitalism or profit.

You miss the point if you claim he contradicts that conclusion, because the systems invented that the examples require were ALL publicly funded. Without the socialist inventions, there would be no capitalistic innovations. No internet=no world wide web. No WiFi means no WiFi. No displays=no mobile computers/phones. No access to phone lines=no data transfers, so no internet, www, etc.

If his numbers are correct, 72% of research spending is public funding, not private. Nuff said.

Not a straw man one bit. I didn't say you made the list, but you accepted it as the topic and your examples.

Again, they didn't personally profit. Government employees don't own patents on what they create on the job, and didn't profit personally from them. That came later from the public sector. Even in the private sector, inventors often don't profit from inventions they create at work, their company does. I'm certainly not saying people don't profit from their inventions, just not in these publicly funded cases.

100% of the examples were based on purely taxpayer funded inventions, created not through capitalism, not created for profit. Publicly funded projects are SOCIALISM. Those who spout hate of anything socialism should immediately get off the internet.

Again, G5 and G6 are being led by communist countries. Invention isn't tied to profit, especially these inventions.

Necessity is the mother of invention, not profit.

Do we need another round? We're going in circles because you insist socialist academic inventions are due solely to the incentive of profit, ignoring their history and origins.

There are some portions of the GND that could work, how well I don't know, but they could in theory. My biggest issue with it, beyond the more ludicrous parts, is that it doesn't allow for reality.

It is very much like the Soviet 5 year plans in that there are a series of grand ideas but when they fail they would just rehash and move on to the next set of ideas. It's kind of like Trump's promises about the border wall.

Any logical person knew that Mexico was never going to pay for it and that it would probably never be built, but there are a fuckton of illogical people out there and logical people are as vulnerable to mob peer pressure as anyone else. He might even win a repeat term because there is still a huge rift between the more logical conservative Dems and the pie in the sky ultra progressives. Hell, in the confusion its even been mentioned on CNN that Hillary might toss her hat in again or try to lend weight to a conservative Dem nominee so as to 'trump' the progressives.

Your idea sounds fair, but I could only see something like that working in a country like China, where the 'incentives' are that you don't get stood against the wall.

I quite like what they do in India. Incentives for men to get the snip, and whatever the equivalent procedure is for women. E.g. get a vasectomy, and the government buys you a new car.

No more accidental children (which is what makes up the majority of births). You can imagine that most people taking this offer up are typically going to be people who should not be having children, so it's a huge win for humanity.

Also externalising pregnancy to incubators would ensure that career focused families need not miss out on having children - particularly if they have their sperm and eggs frozen before they are sterilized. They can then have healthy cells ready for when they are ready, providing their children with a better environment to grow up in...... Without the health concerns for the mother, and without the health concerns for the baby (like alcohol and smoking while pregnant, or even mothers with type 2 diabetes, which is a huge problem these days because of what it does to the fetus).

Fewer bad parents, and a larger amount of deserving parents would really tip the scales for a better future in just a couple of generations.

Again...Race is not the ONLY criteria looked at, finances, family, school districts, etc all come into play....and the two students I mentioned were excellent students, far better than I was, and I'm certain their applications were accepted before race had been factored in, their scores were that good. As I understand it, race is only factored in to choose between two relatively equally scoring students, never to accept students who aren't proficient simply due to ethnicity.
Given the same educational opportunities across the board, race could be removed completely....that's simply not where we are. The proper order of things seems to be fix the underlying issues like unequal schools/education THEN remove the programs implemented to address the results of those issues. Reversing that order only further harms the downtrodden and likely never addresses the underlying issues as it removes any incentives for the ruling class to do so.

Properly funding public education so it's on par with private education seems to be step one to me. As I mentioned, we are moving in the other direction here, defunding it in multiple ways.

I mentioned why racial assumptions are often used instead of a full individual examination of all factors, lack of staff to do that examination thoroughly and a desire for diversity in the outcome.

Nice discussion, thanks for staying respectful. Time for me to move on, though....my opinion doesn't matter anyway, I'm no policy maker, just an unemployed welder/house husband with an opinion.

@newtboy,
"Yeah, that's honest, move to a profession where one single specific type of performance is the entire job..."

Take any highly competitive field and you've got similar professional grading based upon excellence in the field. Legal, Medical, Engineering, the same kind of professionals can be found hunting for top tier talent in any of these, no different than the NBA. Their criteria can be every bit as colour blind and there is strong economic incentives to do so to boot.

"Side note: there have been some who suggested affirmative action in sports, requiring a certain number of white players on teams. Indeed, there were white leagues that fought tooth and nail to not let even the most talented non whites participate. Just sayin...."
And that would be racist, and it was wrong, and it's something we should be glad to be rid of.

Just sayin....

"Race is considered, period."
Reasonable, non-racist people are going to disagree with you. They are going to, correctly, call your policy racist.

Can you really not see the other side that thinks fighting racism with racism is the wrong approach?