|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Actually he got significantly more votes in the states that actually matter, you appear to be one of those uneducated persons that look at the overall popular vote in an EC system, which is a very dumb thing to do indeed. Be smarter! You describe his win as a technicality which is also very ignorant. You are smarter than this! It's literally how elections work in the US:, you do not vote for president. That isn't a technicality in any sense of the word whatsoever. It would be like saying the opposing team won on a technicality because they scored more baskets. It's literally the name of the game!!! This seems to be a very hard concept for some people here to understand, and I'm not sure why: the popular vote means literally nothing in the US, it tells you nothing, it is nothing, full stop. It does not mean "Hillary would have won" because, as any political science expert would tell you, voting strategies and patterns are inherently tired to the process. We do not know the outcome of a theoretical election that uses the PV because everything would have been different from day 1. The popular vote does matter, insofar as it signals that Trump does not actually represent a majority of the country. There are a small-d democratic implications regarding political legitimacy of a system that enshrines minority rule that should be reckoned with. Saying that the popular vote doesn't matter because we have an electoral college is fundamentally saying that policy doesn't matter, only electability
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Actually he got significantly more votes in the states that actually matter, you appear to be one of those uneducated persons that look at the overall popular vote in an EC system, which is a very dumb thing to do indeed. Be smarter! You describe his win as a technicality which is also very ignorant. You are smarter than this! It's literally how elections work in the US:, you do not vote for president. That isn't a technicality in any sense of the word whatsoever. It would be like saying the opposing team won on a technicality because they scored more baskets. It's literally the name of the game!!! This seems to be a very hard concept for some people here to understand, and I'm not sure why: the popular vote means literally nothing in the US, it tells you nothing, it is nothing, full stop. It does not mean "Hillary would have won" because, as any political science expert would tell you, voting strategies and patterns are inherently tired to the process. We do not know the outcome of a theoretical election that uses the PV because everything would have been different from day 1. Also popular vote outcome is the last refuge of Clinton apologists. I agree policy/popular will matters but come on, a big reason democrats get their rear end handed to them is inefficient vote distribution so you can't separate that fact from "democrats are a waste." If they had the same margins and the GOP voter distribution they'd look like gods. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:The popular vote does matter, insofar as it signals that Trump does not actually represent a majority of the country. Winning the popular vote doesn't mean that either considering only about half the country votes to begin with
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The behavior up thread, were a Trump voter who recognized their fault, was attacked and rejected, is basically proof of that - the goal wasn't to include, but exclude. If Call me Charlie thinks he made a mistake by voting for Trump I missed it. I think the response get got was because he still thinks Trump was the right choice. rudatron posted:The modern rhetoric of social justice is simply an extension of the way rich people have always seen the worse off - uncultured, stupid and disposable. It's interesting to see social justice combined with idpol now. I get the resentment towards getting painted as backwards for being rural, it rubs me the wrong way American culture and politicians treat rural America as "real" America. I think it's interesting people were shocked I'd worry about losing LGBT rights due to populism on the left, but now "social justice" is also part of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
All the popular vote means is that New York and California vote majority Democrat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I think it's interesting people were shocked I'd worry about losing LGBT rights due to populism on the left, but now "social justice" is also part of the problem. People were shocked because the majority of queer rights has been pushed and fought for by groups that are significantly further left than anyone who has ever sat their asses in the US congress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:In case people were still wondering why Democrats pretend corbyn doesn't exist, Obama's campaign manager was a lead on May's campaign. And he's great at predictions: I didn't know this. This makes this election result just so much better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I think it's interesting people were shocked I'd worry about losing LGBT rights due to populism on the left, but now "social justice" is also part of the problem. rudatron posted:The modern rhetoric of social justice is simply an extension of the way rich people have always seen the worse off - uncultured, stupid and disposable. I added bold to highlight the entire subject of the sentence in rudatron's post. I italicised the part of it you missed in spite of it being essential to understand the sentence. It rather changes the meaning of the sentence when you do that. I'm sure if you weren't being so quick to judge the left then you would have actually comprehended the post so please try to learn from this mistake. So many debates in this forum get derailed by people attacking the posts they think the other person wrote and it would be super great if it happened less often.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:Both make me sick. Both have sold out the working class. which is what? 98% of the entire population....I'm out of the process. I still vote, always, but only for 3rd party. Please help us take back the Dems from the moneyed interests. The Clintonite weirdos can be gradually thrown out and we will win. It's not sexy or fun or provides immediate relief and joy but it is possible. But we need your help.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Can someone please superimpose an image of abuela dabbing over a photo of people in slavery thanks
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
call to action posted:Can someone please superimpose an image of abuela dabbing over a photo of people in slavery thanks Quick and dirty. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Futuresight posted:I added bold to highlight the entire subject of the sentence in rudatron's post. I italicised the part of it you missed in spite of it being essential to understand the sentence. It rather changes the meaning of the sentence when you do that. I'm sure if you weren't being so quick to judge the left then you would have actually comprehended the post so please try to learn from this mistake. So many debates in this forum get derailed by people attacking the posts they think the other person wrote and it would be super great if it happened less often. So what is the modern rhetoric of social justice? Has the definition changed recently? Seeing people refer to identity politics and the modern rhetoric of social justice looks alarmingly like anti-lgbt dog whistles from the right (especially up thread where someone was talking about tumblerinas and hystrionics). That's why I really want to see people definite their terms. Being on the left doesn't automatically mean you give a poo poo about queer rights, and I can see getting badly burned by blindly assuming it does.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Quick and dirty. *in the robotic Hillary voice from "Chapo"* GIVE US...US FREE!!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
The main problem with modern SJ is that so much of it Is pedantic bullshit that ultimately boils down to an arbitrary set of manners that change every five seconds. This set of rules then gets either abused by idiots who don't know what they're talking about, or gets cynically exploited by bad actors as a way to shut down inconvenient discussions. See: that one poster who had a meltdown over someone calling Henry "Death Squads" Kissinger a oval office. That's not to say that no good comes from the SJ movement (quite the opposite) but I don't think it's inaccurate to say that the movement can be it's own worst enemy at times.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:So what is the modern rhetoric of social justice? Has the definition changed recently? What you're doing now is part of the problem. You're searching for reasons to get upset with people and write them off as insincere, as not being sufficiently loyal to the cause. It's the exact equivalent of the "purity tests" centrists accuse the left of using. Except instead of ideological purity it uses whether people know the right words or phrases, making sure they parrot the correct opinions (note here I'm not talking about big opinions like whether homosexuality is a sin level stuff), and avoid the kind of language that you associate with the out group. Read their loving post. Actually try to comprehend what the point is. Attack the point if you disagree with the actual point. If you don't like the tone or language then feel free to point that out if you're okay with someone else coming down on you for making a tone argument. But don't just scan the post for the words that indicate correct-think and form your opinion from that. EDIT: Also I understand the impulse to write people off because of words they use. I'm being kind of a dick because I'm getting sick of how often this happens, but I definitely get the impulse. I feel the same every time I see someone use "cuck". Futuresight fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Futuresight posted:What you're doing now is part of the problem. You're searching for reasons to get upset with people and write them off as insincere, as not being sufficiently loyal to the cause. It's the exact equivalent of the "purity tests" centrists accuse the left of using. Except instead of ideological purity it uses whether people know the right words or phrases, making sure they parrot the correct opinions (note here I'm not talking about big opinions like whether homosexuality is a sin level stuff), and avoid the kind of language that you associate with the out group. I'm not searching for reasons to get upset, I'm asking someone to define the terms they're using because they sound like dog whistles to me. I want people to be really clear about what they're saying. I thought it was really helpful to see how idpol was being defined. I don't think it's too much to ask for clarification when someone says modern rhetoric on social justice is a big problem. I get that you're offended I would dare question a leftist on this, but you need to get the gently caress over it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Defining it is hard, but the posts we're looking at provide the context if I fail here. Classical social justice rhetoric is just central thesis stuff. The modern rhetoric, not the theory behind it, but the rhetoric as it is used in political discussion has evolved to be something that is often used as a means to establish identity through ritual. This is why it's being dovetailed with idpol, the objections to it run along the same lines. This specific aspect of social justice rhetoric is used to identify who is on the team and who is not, and this is then used to attack people you disagree with for other reasons. Which is why I didn't like you taking words out of context and using the very existence of the words as evidence for some underlying intent. That's often how this kind of thing goes down. It's especially insidious because it works like things like loitering laws that are so vague so petty and so commonly broken that they give police the ability to harass minorities while ignoring the crimes whites commit. Nobody speaks perfectly and says exactly what they mean in the exact best words to say it all the time so everybody violates the rules from time to time. If you like the person you either ignore it or point it out and move on, but if you want to shut someone out or shut down a discussion you just focus on the "violation" and use it to paint them as an outsider. It's kinda like how the right went after Obama for not wearing a flag pin. He didn't complete all the proper patriotism rituals perfectly and so the right used it as evidence he lacked the patriotism itself. If somebody they didn't want to attack/discredit had done it they would have just ignored it. So... I guess I'd characterise modern social justice rhetoric as an obsession with observing the rituals of social justice. Which is then made problematic when people use the rituals themselves, not the principles the rituals represent, to marginalise people whose other views they don't like. Futuresight fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I'm not searching for reasons to get upset, I'm asking someone to define the terms they're using because they sound like dog whistles to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
twodot posted:I would expect a person seeking clarity to say "I'm asking someone to define the terms they're using, because I don't understand what they mean". I'd expect a person seeking reasons to get upset to say "I'm asking someone to define the terms they're using because they sound like dog whistles". Seeking clarity was my intent. Thanks for the clarification Futuresight
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Quick and dirty. Now it needs a caption of her superpredators quote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Deadly Ham Sandwich posted:I didn't know this. This makes this election result just so much better. He is also the chairman of Organizing for Action and Priorities USA, in case people are trying to figure out how progressive the mainstream of the democratic party is even in comparison to the UK.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Now it needs a caption of her superpredators quote. Or just, "BUT WILL IT SOLVE RACISM?!?!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Now it needs a caption of her superpredators quote. "And yet she dabbed"
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:In case people were still wondering why Democrats pretend corbyn doesn't exist, Obama's campaign manager was a lead on May's campaign. And he's great at predictions: How can someone be this much of a piece of poo poo? American dude talking about May's bright vision while she is trying to gently caress with the NHS and saying the British have too many civil rights. I hope he never comes back. I'm sick of Obama and all his friends. At least his twitter feed is almost entirely people calling him a sack of garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
The real idiot at this point is whoever hires him next.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's fairly simple. https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/872516009629974535 In short, Blarism/centrism/triangulating neo-liberalism is a loving dead ideology. People that stick to it are being delusional.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Radish posted:How can someone be this much of a piece of poo poo? American dude talking about May's bright vision while she is trying to gently caress with the NHS and saying the British have too many civil rights. I hope he never comes back. I'm sick of Obama and all his friends. I give Blairites a lot of poo poo, and it's deserved, but it's deserved not on the basis of the policy they claim to support, at least when you compare them to Democrats in America who are largely worse, but on the basis of them being total loving cowards. Just like centrists in the Democratic party, where at the end of the day "the policy they claim to support" is a totally useless metric for judging them because their support for anything is paper-thin. They're not about thinking up good policy that will actually help people and then going out and selling it, they're about reading the electorate and then crafting a policy platform that they believe will get them the most votes - that's it. And if wildly different policy works better in different areas of the country, then they'll happily have people proposing wildly different policy under the Democratic umbrella on a regional basis at the expense of any sort of consistent direction at the national level. So no one knows what the gently caress Democrats stand for, including Democrats, because ultimately the Democratic party doesn't actually stand for anything except getting Democratic politicians into office (with a focus on incumbents). This is why I call the Democratic "party" less of a party and more of a politicians' guild. And so what we get is an Overton window shifting steadily to the right, in spite of a public that on most issues social and economic moves in fits and starts to the left - and that's without anyone of consequence at the national level leading them in that direction, by the way. (I mean, maybe we're starting to get there now, but for the last many decades there hasn't been anyone.) It makes you wonder where we'd be now with a credible leftist party in this country even just in the last eight years. Kokoro Wish posted:In short, Blarism/centrism/triangulating neo-liberalism is a loving dead ideology. People that stick to it are being delusional. We can't even say that in the US. Triangulating centrist bullshit is alive and well in the Democratic party. They're in charge of party, they've learned nothing, and they've mostly vanquished their rivals. They're going to squeak out some wins in 2018 and 2020, consolidate power off the back of that, and we're going to be right back here (or worse, probably worse) in 2024 or 2028. Kilroy fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Jun 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Again, there is a reason why, out of everyone involved in the Black Lives Matter movement, democrats decided to shine light on the two TFA stooges who brag about getting teachers fired (Deray McKesson and Brittany Packnett). There is a reason even the most progressive democrats never even mention the AT&T strike. There is a reason why democrats who freaked out over DeVos said nothing when Obama was the most disastrous president for HBCUs (current president included).And there is a reason why the Pod Save America crowd talked non stop about Macron but said jack poo poo about Corbyn. I have donated money and fundraised for democrats, but my focus is on the DSA. Democrats will absolutely sell you out at the first chance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Again, there is a reason why, out of everyone involved in the Black Lives Matter movement, democrats decided to shine light on the two TFA stooges who brag about getting teachers fired (Deray McKesson and Brittany Packnett). There is a reason even the most progressive democrats never even mention the AT&T strike. There is a reason why democrats who freaked out over DeVos said nothing when Obama was the most disastrous president for HBCUs (current president included).And there is a reason why the Pod Save America crowd talked non stop about Macron but said jack poo poo about Corbyn. I mean I'm not quite there yet, but I'm looking for a reason not to wash my hands of them completely and haven't found one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:The main problem with modern SJ is that so much of it Is pedantic bullshit that ultimately boils down to an arbitrary set of manners that change every five seconds. This set of rules then gets either abused by idiots who don't know what they're talking about, or gets cynically exploited by bad actors as a way to shut down inconvenient discussions. See: that one poster who had a meltdown over someone calling Henry "Death Squads" Kissinger a oval office. Privilege theory and similar concepts are good tools in a pedagogical environment to learn about ideology. They are bad when applied directly as political or activist slogans because they tend to be used as guilt-tripping narcisistic super-egoic injuctions which alienate and censor instead of inspiring. The "Deplorables" tactic of political discourse in a way. It's good to galvanize hyperliberals. Bad for everything else politically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/872516009629974535 It's not dead, it's just a con job strategy. If it works, you win big. If it doesn't... well, it's not like leftists can afford to run; leaving the next one in line to try and be more convincing about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:So what is the modern rhetoric of social justice? Has the definition changed recently? I'm not sure how old you are, but do you remember 2008 when both of the liberal Democrats campaigning to be President didn't just use anti-LGBT dog whistles, they openly opposed equal rights on the campaign trail? If they thought for one second that going anti-gay would get them back into power, the Obama-Clinton wing would throw us under the bus before you could say "yas Queen" that is just a historical fact. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Jun 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
Weird how the the reaction to the Vietnam was was not, as one may logically expect, to just say "well maybe foreign adventurism is bad  ", but, strangely, coincided with the support on the 'left' of absolutely irrelevant domestic policy, that capitalists have wanted to do since forever. If the fear of Vietnam is still motivated these chucklefucks to be anti-unions 40+ years after the war, while themselves engaging in just as much imperialism/adventurism after the fact, then I'm sorry, the issue isn't the Vietnam war.That's nothing but a self-serving rationalization, or external screen, onto which the hidden desires can be projected onto. It's not "A -> B", it's "I want to do B, So I assume A is true" - I want to kill the new deal, I want to privatize everything, so I choose to believe a personal fantasy in which I can blame them for losing to Nixon. It's 100% class.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I'm not searching for reasons to get upset, I'm asking someone to define the terms they're using because they sound like dog whistles to me. I want people to be really clear about what they're saying. It's why you're committed to trying to deconstruct the meaning of like 4 words, in a post of about 1 paragraph that clearly & concisely sets out my reasoning on the matter. The idea of there being a legitimate difference in ideology, political philosophy or that, god forbid, people actually mean what they say (when not parroting your lines), is foreign to you. But the nature of human existence is that you can't really know what anyone else is thinking. And from that doubt, from that abyss created by a lack of understanding, you conjure up whatever phantoms you wish to, that happens to be most convenient to you at that time. In this case, you've chosen to ignore the thesis (That social justice rhetoric is constructed to screen out poors) in favor of concern trolling (are you suggesting that gays aren't people!?!?!?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
It's weird because when I asked for examples of anti-gay politicians on the left a few pages ago nobody could provide any, at all. Which is not surprising because the history of gay liberation was a radical movement on the far left finally succeeding in bringing gay toleration into the mainstream. And now the liberals who ran on """family values""" and criticized queer activists for being too radical, for being too loud, for making Democrats look like a bunch of perverts and weirdos, are turning around and trying to gaslight us: radical left, you were *the real* secret homophobes all along! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Jun 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
the thesis "social justice is just a plot to screen out poors" seems to slot almost perfectly into "conjure up whatever phantoms you wish to, that happens to be most convenient to you at that time," though? like, we get it, you're convinced any expressed concerns about social justice are rooted in secret attempts to keep the working man down. good for you. supporting this thesis you have, in total, "liberals say this stuff a lot," and a supervillain rant about how foul spirits have possessed those who oppose you that must be purged. you can, perhaps, understand why the people whose concerns you insist are a malevolent plot to prevent socialism, and whose tenuous political power you insist is rooted entirely in white guilt, might think you sound exactly like every kid whining about how affirmative action is actually a government plot to keep the white man down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
It's not like 'economic populism for me, not for thee' doesn't have a long and well established history in this country. But that reading of the historical record has sweet gently caress-all to do with the left as it's currently constituted. Like, no one is saying, "back in the closet queermo, you're costing us votes in Alabama," because economic justice and human rights are not actually mutually exclusive goals. One imagines that a theoretical Sanders-appointed justice department would spend a more time chasing down mass fraud on Wall St. then Obama and Holder, but unless I badly misread the man there weren't any plans to shut down the civil rights division either. Edit: seriously, the issue I take with whatever offense has people literally shaking on campuses this week isn't that I lust for the ability to bellow racial slurs it's that demonstrating how woke you are is way less useful than helping the actual drat workers at the dorm cafeteria unionize. And while those COULD go hand-in-hand, in practice they rarely do because the latter is much harder. I am far less sanguine than Rudatron that populism is the first order driver for most of Trump's supporters, but the notion that the DSA or what have you wants to roll back civil rights legislation is a pernicious lie that needs to be pushed back against. Rangpur fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Jun 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
You're just proving my point. Look at that substitution you made there, from 'concern trolling' to 'expressed concerns'. The point isn't 'the concerns are totally irrelevant', it's 'they're being misused by people more interested in defining an elite than changing society'. I didn't call it a 'plot' either, I said it's an extension of class perception. Nothing spiritual there either buddy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Rangpur posted:It's not like 'economic populism for me, not for thee' doesn't have a long and well established history in this country. But that reading of the historical record has sweet gently caress-all to do with the left as it's currently constituted. Like, no one is saying, "back in the closet queermo, you're costing us votes in Alabama," because economic justice and human rights are not actually mutually exclusive goals. One imagines that a theoretical Sanders-appointed justice department would spend a more time chasing down mass fraud on Wall St. then Obama and Holder, but unless I badly misread the man there weren't any plans to shut down the civil rights division either. While that was passing, the hard left in the US was organizing desegregated unions, so like, there's also that. The new deal was ultimately a bargain to save capitalists from their own incompetence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's weird because when I asked for examples of anti-gay politicians on the left a few pages ago nobody could provide any, at all. Which is not surprising because the history of gay liberation was a radical movement on the far left finally succeeding in bringing gay toleration into the mainstream. It's amazing how so many people who point to LGBT rights as an immutable core principle of the Democratic platform have shoved the party's adversarial-at-best relationship to LGBT activists prior to 2012(ish) down the memory hole. The liberal "allies" who spent a decade arguing for separate-but-equal civil unions in lieu of same-sex marriage loved to claim that nationally legalizing gay marriage was a political impossibility and would remain so for the foreseeable future. Of course, within two weeks of the first poll to show >50% national support for same-sex marriage, Obama and Clinton were out there calling for legal same-sex marriage, in direct opposition to the party-line status-quo positions that they'd both held in the 2008 campaign. That about-face wasn't even relevant in the end, since it ultimately took a Supreme Court decision on a lawsuit filed by gay rights activists to bring about marriage equality - and those lawsuits for same-sex marriage drew a lot of flak from centrists who feared that a victory for gay rights in the courts might mobilize socially conservative voters. The Democratic Party, especially at the national level, are fair-weather friends at best for all minorities. Even on issues like same-sex marriage, where a) there's popular support for the left-of-center position and b) enacting a socially liberal policy would have zero adverse effect on moneyed interests, they won't take a firm stance unless they feel that it would be in their political best interests to do so. And for highly popular left issues that would have a direct adverse effect on corporate profits, like prison reform or progressive immigration policy? Forget it. Expect a lot of talk, maybe some empty or two-faced promises, but don't expect direct action from the Democrats until well after their hand has been forced. The only time the national party can be trusted to take a firm stance on civil rights is in the rare case where civil rights are aligned with Democrat-friendly corporate interests, like how civil rights activists and the party's Silicon Valley sponsors are both against Trump's Muslim ban (albeit for significantly different reasons).
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 03:19
|
|
