Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Politics Thread for May: Everything is fucked, emphasis on everything.
 
  • Locked thread
Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Jagchosis posted:

to be honest; from a legal standpoint I don't think the government even had the evidence to convict these motherfuckers, let alone go China on them and summarily execute. Yes, I have read the emails, and Yes, I have seen the Levin hearings (they're fantastic). To put more bankers in jail for the poo poo they pulled in 08 would require a substantial revision of securities laws. I completely agree that Wall Street executives who marketed mortgage backed securities that led to the crash are robber baron motherfuckers, and that it would hilarious if Bill Clinton gave Lloyd Blankfein a Colombian Necktie, I just don't think that a criminal prosecution of a top executive under our current laws would result in anything other than an acquittal, or a guilty plea if he is a dipshit, unless there was a paper trail that literally said "hey, let's do this fraudulent thing to defraud investors fraudulently." More controversially, I am also p. sure the DOJ looked into this as best they could, and did not find sufficient evidence to prosecute, because that is how prosecutors do. I do believe that civil charges may have had more luck because of the lower burden of proof, but there is still a lot of plausible deniability for higher ranking folk.

Catching up with the thread and just want to point out that this post is factually incorrect. SEC regulations, Securities law '33, etc, puts the onus on not misleading investors, not establishing intent. Its slam dunk stuff, its why 1110 people were prosecuted for the S 'n' L scandal, why Enron and Arthur Anderson got reamed, etc. Lack of prosecution is a lack of prosecutorial will and balls, never forget that.

* # ¿ May 9, 2014 20:24
  • Quote
Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 17:32
  • Quote
Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Radish posted:



Do you have any idea who made the ultimate decision not to prosecute?

AFAIK, its not one individual's choice here. You have a noxious combination of factors, lack of skilled and knowledgeable prosecutors and staff (versus some of the best law firms and legal maniacs known to have ever been birthed out of a noxious money pit), an unmatched economic crisis throwing raining down hellfire and promises of immediate doom, centralized bureacractic mandates and institionalized fear (from the withering attacks on prosecutorial discretion post Enron, pre Recession by politicos, bureacrats, and the media), the unreleting avalanche that is modern day securities litigation (I mean, discovery itself takes years these days, diving into literally millions and millions of docs in harddrives and the like, not even including the level of specialization and deep expertise to decipher a trading culture whose murky nature and impossible to understand mechanics was seen as a virtue). But it comes to a cultural lack of will and a fear of possible consequences by most everyone (including regualar joes, afraid of government overreach), something only remedied (hopefully) when this all happens yet again.

* # ¿ May 9, 2014 21:19
  • Quote
Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:

The M part of MBS didn't come out of thin air.

Syntethics are bets on whether actual securitized mortgages are going to do well or not (or price within a certain range or not). Its not something you want to call solid, if I were you.

* # ¿ May 9, 2014 21:23
  • Quote
Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Jagchosis posted:

This is true of some civil violations, criminal penalties do require "willful" violation though, or conspiracy, etc, so whatever man. To nail the fatcats the government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the fatcats knew that the asset backed securities were complete garbage, and were actually involved in it. Things like the AAA credit ratings from "independent" agencies, presumably shielding themselves from liability by limiting actual involvement and knowledge to low and mid-level thugs (see, Levin's "lovely Deal" hearings), as Mafia leaders did in the past. The government has been trying to nail Steven A. Cohen for 10 years for basically building a fortune entirely from insider trading, and have failed to get a strong enough case to prosecute him even though they (a) loving hate him and (b) 11 or so of his staff have been sentenced to prison.

Also, Arthur Anderson was convicted for obstruction of justice for shredding audit work papers. The S&L prosecutions were pretty much entirely low and mid-level losers, and to the extent that executives were prosecuted they were generally officers of relatively small companies. Enron and Worldcom are the few examples of high-level crooks being stupid enough to get personally involved and directing the fraud, which resulted in the prosecutions. The government also had useful witnesses in those cases.

Penalties:
'33 Act
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/77x

'34 Act
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78ff

'40 Act
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/80a-48

Fortune's "Favorite Felonies" from S&L Crisis
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1990/11/05/74309/index.htm

EDIT: Maybe they could be charged under RICO or mail fraud or something, I dunno. I think securities laws would be hard.

I don't think we're necessarily arguing different points here. As underwriters (mostly done by investment banks and the like, who also tend to put these assets together into mortgage pools, to be divied up by a trustee and sold to some poor fools), the fact they signed on to and said these deals were actually good counts as willfully misleading investors, not necessitating the discovery of intent. Which goes along with the '33 act, "or any person who willfully, in a registration statement filed under this subchapter, makes any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state any material fact required to be stated". This is what the government has tried to do in going after these guys so far, though unfortunately with no luck so far. That doesn't necessarily mean that should hold in the future, considering the blatant nature of the evidence that has leaked to the public about the malicious nature of how some of these bankers worked. Look at the Federal Crisis Inquiry Commision, fraud was used more than a hundred times in the report.

I'd recommend reading this article by an actual federal judge on the matter: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/jan/09/financial-crisis-why-no-executive-prosecutions/

* # ¿ May 10, 2014 06:42
  • Quote
Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

 Oh and the most right wing thing I've done I suppose was earnestly and childlishly (because I was 13) believe in trade deals and open markets and Clinton WTO deals as the answer to the world's problems.

The Friedman Unit....was me.

* # ¿ May 10, 2014 06:56
  • Quote
Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

 At this point I think a separation of threads for people who want to read about politics and those who want to talk about themselves is called for. Anyway, political stories:

Surprise, surprise, Rand Paul walks back his comments about Republicans, you know, not stopping black people from voting.

quote:

“In the course of that discussion, he reiterated a point he has made before that while there may be some instances of voter fraud, it should not be a defining issue of the Republican Party, as it is an issue that is perhaps perceived in a way it is not intended,” Stafford said in a statement Monday. “In terms of the specifics of voter ID laws, Senator Paul believes it's up to each state to decide that type of issue.”

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/05/rand-paul-was-right-about-gop-vote-suppression.html

Tea party favorite in Nebraska set to win.

quote:

Conservatives are poised to declare victory on Tuesday in Nebraska, where their preferred Senate candidate, Benjamin E. Sasse, is well positioned to win the Republican nomination in a race that the Tea Party has made a priority in a year that so far has favored the establishment.

The ideological differences between Mr. Sasse, the president of a small college and a former Bush administration official, and the Republican who was seen as his main rival, Shane Osborn, the former state treasurer, are scant.

But, sensing an opportunity to make a difference in an open-seat race, groups such as the Club for Growth and the Senate Conservatives Fund, along with the Republican Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah, got behind Mr. Sasse, arguing he would be a bolder pick.

At the same time, many well-connected Republican lobbyists in Washington, including some with ties to the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, have backed Mr. Osborn. In recent weeks, though, Mr. Osborn has faded in the polls, and Sid Dinsdale, a wealthy banker, has emerged as perhaps Mr. Sasse’s chief rival.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/us/politics/conservative-pick-set-to-win-gop-primary-in-nebraska.html?_r=0

How this is a symptom of a breakdown between national and local Tea Party groups

quote:

Ever since, Nebraska’s Tea Party members have been battling national Tea Party donor groups.

“We are not million-dollar Washington, D.C., special interest groups with strong ties to Capitol Hill. We are simply Nebraskans who are fed up,” a group of 52 activists wrote in an open letter protesting FreedomWorks’s about-face, adding, “We were not consulted, polled, or contacted by these Washington, D.C., groups.”

Other activists complain that the Washington groups are losing touch with people at the local level.

“It worked well when they communicated with us on the ground,” Patrick Bonnett, chairman of the Conservative Coalition of Nebraska, said of the Washington groups. “It breaks down when they unilaterally get involved in our local races, even if it’s in federal campaigns, and endorse and start spending money.”

In many ways, the tensions are an inevitable product of a political movement that began without central leadership and spread with antigovernment fervor.

Initially, the national groups saw themselves as shepherds of a grass-roots Tea Party flock, but they have since taken on an electoral role, cultivating candidates and choosing sides. But they have struggled to come up with candidates at times, and some of their contenders have stumbled badly.


Some of the groups have also engaged in the kind of spending that Tea Party members have denounced.

For instance, the Conservative Campaign Committee paid Diana Nagy, who sings at Tea Party rallies, $4,500 to cover her stay at a Michigan golf resort. The Senate Conservatives Fund, a group founded by former Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, began renting a Capitol Hill townhouse with a hot tub and wine cellar.

There is also widespread criticism that the groups spend a small portion of the money they raise in support of candidates. “The pursuit of money was more important than the desire to work closely with the state activists,” said Dick Armey, a former House majority leader who left FreedomWorks and criticized what he said was the group’s drift.

The groups’ leaders defend their operations. “We need to raise money to keep ourselves going,” said Adam Brandon, the executive vice president of FreedomWorks. “Grass-roots activism is not cheap, and this stuff is not for free.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/us/politics/tea-party-activists-see-own-groups-among-washington-adversaries.html

* # ¿ May 13, 2014 21:14
  • Quote
Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

 NY Magazine has been putting out great polital stories for years now, yes, in large part to Chait, but they've been pretty on point for the ACA, finance, the election, etc. Its worth bookmarking.

* # ¿ May 13, 2014 21:27
  • Quote
Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

 Ben Sasse wins the Nebraska primary

quote:

Republican Ben Sasse comfortably won his party's nomination for U.S. Senate in Nebraska Tuesday, handing the national tea party groups that backed him a much-needed victory headed into the heart of a congressional primary season offering few opportunities for success.

Also of note

quote:

GOP attention now shifts to next Tuesday, a day that has long been circled on Republican calendars because of the number of contested primaries being held. Tea party candidates face an uphill climb that day.

In Kentucky, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is the front-runner over conservative businessman Matt Bevin. Bevin's campaign has failed to gain much steam amid distracting setbacks like his attendance at a pro-cockfighting rally.

In Georgia, Rep. Jack Kingston, a powerful appropriator who has earned the ire of conservatives, appears to be near the head of a pack alongside businessman David Perdue in a Senate primary most close watcher believe is headed to a runoff. Tea party favorites like Rep. Paul Broun, meanwhile, are running well behind.

In Idaho's 2nd congressional district, the business wing of the GOP is battling the tea party in a fight that pits Rep. Mike Simpson against attorney Bryan Smith. Simpson is backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Smith is backed by the Club for Growth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/05/13/tea-party-backed-ben-sasse-wins-nebraska-primary-for-u-s-senate/

* # ¿ May 14, 2014 15:01
  • Quote
Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Stultus Maximus posted:



For example, Cliven Bundy. Man's probably never met a black person in his life, but he knows all about the welfare-takin' baby-killin' lazy surly Negro who needs to pick cotton. On the other hand, he's probably worked with Mexican laborers for decades and he'll tell you that the average Mexican is more hard working and moral than whites.

Living in a lily white place growing up, my little brother's friend was shocked to see his cut hand one time. He was told that black people bled blue....so there's that...

* # ¿ May 14, 2014 15:36
  • Quote
Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

zoux posted:

So all the non red states here then:


Wait, NY is open carry?!

EDIT: Or is green open carry? This thing is more confusing than Dadaism.

Shageletic fucked around with this message at 14:31 on May 17, 2014

* # ¿ May 17, 2014 14:28
  • Quote
Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

 What have the Koch brothers been up to lately you might be asking. The answer is nothing good.

quote:

Americans for Prosperity, the conservative advocacy group supported by the Koch brothers, has launched an effort to torpedo a proposed settlement in the Detroit bankruptcy case, potentially complicating chances for completing the deal just as its prospects seemed to be improving.

The organization, formed to fight big government and spending, is contacting 90,000 conservatives in Michigan and encouraging them to rally against a plan to provide $195 million in state money to help settle Detroit pension holders' claims in the case, a key element of the deal.

The group has threatened to run ads against members of the Republican-controlled Legislature who vote in favor of the appropriation before the state's August primary. An initial legislative vote may come this week.

Using public money for Detroit's case "is very toxic, especially to out-state and Republican, conservative-leaning individuals," said Scott Hagerstrom, director of the Americans for Prosperity's chapter in the state. "Even out-state Democrats, why send any more money to Detroit? Certainly other areas of the state have needs."

quote:

Ten-year-old Americans for Prosperity, which plans to spend at least $125 million nationally helping conservatives in the midterm elections, is becoming more active in state politics. Its willingness to spend millions for advertising has made it a powerful player in political contests.

Dave Doyle, a political strategist and former chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, said the organization's opposition could make a difference even though polling shows considerable public support for a settlement.

"What does have an impact is if they start spending a lot of money on TV and radio and doing mailings into people's districts. The threat of that would get some people to pay attention," he said.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/koch-brothers-group-fighting-detroit-bankruptcy-deal

Which then gives me the excuse to post this article, showing how Koch money trickles down to municipalities

quote:

The Tennessee Senate passed a bill last week that, if approved, would broadly ban mass transit projects in the region, an anti-transit effort that’s gotten some help in the state from Charles and David Koch.

On Thursday, the Tennessee Senate passed SB 2243, which includes an amendment that “prohibits metropolitan governments and any transit authorities created by a metropolitan government from constructing, maintaining or operating any bus rapid transit system using a separate lane, or other separate right-of-way, dedicated solely to the use of such bus rapid transit system on any state highway or state highway.” The amendment is aimed at Nashville’s proposed $174 million rapid bus system called the Amp, but would apply to any mass transit system proposed in Nashville.

The Amp, a proposed 7.1-mile bus rapid transit system that would cut commute times along one of Nashville’s major corridors, has been staunchly opposed by the Tennessee branch of Americans for Prosperity, a lobbying organization founded in part by the Koch brothers. AFP’s Tennessee director told the Tennessean that SB 2243 was the result of a conversation he’d had with the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Jim Tracy. In addition, AFP pushed the Senate to vote on the bill — efforts that led to StopAmp.org, one of the lead groups opposing the Amp, thanking AFP in a press release after SB 2243 passed the Senate. The transit system’s opponents say it would create traffic problems and safety issues due to its middle-lane location, a claim that a spokesman for the Amp Coalition disputes.

Holly McCall, Nashville’s Metropolitan Transit Authority’s spokesperson for the Amp project, told ThinkProgress AFP has kept a low profile throughout the campaign for and against the Amp. She said she’d suspected AFP was involved in the Amp’s opposition, but didn’t know for sure until StopAmp.org thanked the group in their press release.

“It’s pretty tough to fight that kind of money — AFP gets funds from the Koch brothers, and they’re billionaires,” she said. “We continue to work our local campaign, and we’re probably going to make some tweaks to the design — we’re interested in compromise, because if we don’t, our entire future transit plan is going to be dictated by people who live out of state.”

Nashville has a bus system, McCall said, but it’s not enough to transport people throughout the suburbs and into the city, especially not as the city grows. By 2035, almost 1 million new residents will come to live in the Nashville area, according to the MTA.

“It would be hugely transformational,” McCall said of the Amp. “If we don’t do it now, we’re going to be so far behind, and it’s really going to start to hinder our economic development and growth.”

Mike Schatzlein, chairman of the Amp coalition, said in a statement that the Senate’s passage of the bill was an overreach of its authority.

“The Senate basically took a local project that has been in development for five years and voted an amendment to kill it,” Schatzlein said. “The project is the first leg of a regional transit system, so this vote impacts all of Middle Tennessee.”

AFP has chapters in 35 states, and this isn’t the first time they’ve lobbied against local energy and transit initiatives. Last Summer in Georgia, AFP launched a “multi-pronged, grassroots driven initiative” that urged citizens to pressure members of the state’s Public Service Commission to reject an effort to require Georgia Power to expand its use of solar energy. That effort had won the support of members of the Atlanta Tea Party, who saw an expansion of solar in the state an expansion of their ability to choose where their power comes from, but AFP still claimed that the expansion would increase electricity bills and “reduce the reliability of every appliance and electronics gadget” in residents’ homes. Despite AFP’s efforts, the Georgia PSC ultimately voted in favor of requiring Georgia Power to expand its solar usage.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/01/3421088/koch-brothers-tennessee/

* # ¿ May 20, 2014 20:27
  • Quote
Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Tempest_56 posted:

This actually came up in my office the other day - has the US ever gone nation-building overseas and not have it be a flop? The last time I could come up with was rebuilding Japan/Germany, and that seems only questionably being the US's doing.

Catching up with the thread, but this caught my eye.

Grenada. They even have a day for it. Cue someone shooting me down (over the skies of Grenada).

* # ¿ May 28, 2014 16:48
  • Quote
Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Joementum posted:

The US invaded Grenada specifically to stop nation building. It delayed the opening of the airport by about six months.

I thought the Americans invaded to overthrow a military dictatorship staging a coup? Which is just odd enough to leave me open to changing my mind.

* # ¿ May 28, 2014 17:58
  • Quote
Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Joementum posted:

Which was overthrowing the previous military coup. The US involvement came because the government hired some Cuban construction workers to build the airport runway, which might have led to full Communism, and because Reagan needed to invade somewhere so he could look strong after the Beirut bombing. The airport contract was given to various European companies following the invasion.

And democractic elections happened in 1984, after a post invasion government? I'm not trying to argue here, but it wasn't like the pre-coup military leaders held onto power afterwards.

* # ¿ May 28, 2014 20:31
  • Quote
Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Joementum posted:

Great news for freedom lovers today, bad news for wild boars.


:911: :unsmith:

I have to say I'm glad to see something like this happen. We might all be traumatized by the conservative false flag of "streamlining" government, but years, decades, and centuries has left very useless, and sometimes very weird, laws and regulations percolating in the politosphere. This fantastic article on what the author terms "kludges", touches on it, and its definitely worth a read. It effectively shows how the layering of laws and subsequent complexity aids in obstifucation and corruption.

* # ¿ May 30, 2014 21:37
  • Quote
Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Fried Chicken posted:

No it isn't.

One, shareholders appoint and empower the people committing the crimes. They pick the management team, say the goals, and set up the incentives. They have a hand in setting it all up.

Two, ownership means potential losses as well as the potential gains. It is completely ethical to expect them to eat the loss of malfeasance, that is part of the risk they took when they bought in.

Together this means that if we won't fine the shareholders then they can keep putting people in place to do the poo poo the banks have been up to like laundering cartel money and manipulating aluminum prices and have a giant loving "get out if jail free" card

Absolutely the people committing the acts on the management team should be in jail. But the shareholders are responsible as well, particularly for the stuff that isn't illegal but is drat well in the wrong (eg manipulating aluminum prices)

This goes against my understanding of current laws and regulations regarding the power of shareholders to regulate trustees and CEO's. Yes, there has been a trend in the last three decades of "shareholders' rights", a philosophy emphasizing a short rate of return over long term profits bemoaned by the likes of Buffet and staid mutual funds and the like. But attempts to have shareholders have some say in executive compensation, golden parachutes, more direct accountability for CEO's, chairmen, and board of trustees for corporations, among other measures to assert more control, have consistently failed.

Day to day and even long term strategies and tactics are decided in the executive boardroom, not annual or semi-annual shareholder concaves.

* # ¿ Jun 3, 2014 18:34
  • Quote
Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

GreyjoyBastard posted:

This is a Good Post. God bless Florida.

Our company makes pretty good money helping FDOT figure out how to logistically handle those four groups, and it's arguably a trickier problem than in states that have, you know, sane population patterns. (I say arguably because there's some statistical evidence that traffic works mostly the same way in Florida year to year. Which is nice.)

Edit: oh god double post, sorry

Don't y'all have the worst rates for pedestrian hit and runs, drunk driving deaths, and a whole heap of other awful automobile benchmarks? Doesn't seem like anyone has too good a handle on traffic over there.

* # ¿ Jun 4, 2014 19:17
  • Quote
Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

 And we should go after white people due to how Mormons voted. So stupid.

* # ¿ Jun 4, 2014 19:20
  • Quote
Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Paul MaudDib posted:

So which demographic cross-tabs is it OK to make connections with voting trends over?

Like, Mormons are generally agreed to have been a major force in passing Prop 8, is it OK to point that fact out? Is it similarly OK to point out that relatively conservative Baptist churches also played a role in getting Prop 8 passed? They were literally coordinating with those same out-of-state backers, and the ground game is just as, if not more important than, pouring advertising money into a state.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html

Is it relative intensity of support that matters, or what? Because "african american" is one of the particular demographics that voted most strongly in favor of Prop 8 (70%). The only demographic with higher support was "weekly churchgoers" (84%) and "black women" (75%), generic "protestant" and "christian" categories are at 65%, everyone else is down near the 50% mark. Interestingly enough, black men are below the norm for both black people and religious people generally, at 62.5%.

It's never fair to dump an election result squarely in the lap of one demographic on the cross-tab, since everyone's vote counts. But when you break it down there's clearly higher levels of homophobia or crab mentality ("they were never considered a third of a person!") or whatever in the black community circa 2008 given the huge intensity gap versus every other demographic. This is a forum that loves electoral hypotheticals, like "what if a few less liberals had voted third-party in 2000", and it's probably fair to say that black votes (good turnout and their strong split in favor of prop 8) was a deciding factor in pushing Prop 8 over the top.

If I really had to pick one demographic that was responsible for Prop 8 passing, it'd be "religious" or "christian" for sure just based on size. But that doesn't change the fact that black people displayed significantly more support for Prop 8 than even generic "christian". That really sucks from a group that is still fighting its own civil rights struggle and is still within living memory of Jim Crow.

Uh I can't believe I have to say this but you can't subscribe political views on people just based on their skin color. Yes, on one vote, at one time, after the strong mobilization by conservative evangelical Black churches, you have a majority voting for something regressive. But why is it so easy to say that black people as a whole are homophobic or anti-gay, but when you have white people overwhelmingly voting for regressive or plutocratic candidates (coughRomneycough), people just shrug and call out the regressive and discrete portions of those who voted?

When you start ascribing political viewpoints to me just because people with my shade of skin vote a certain way, do you see where that ends up? Hint: nowhere good.

* # ¿ Jun 5, 2014 14:28
  • Quote
Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 17:32
  • Quote
Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

Paul MaudDib posted:

I'm not "ascribing political views" to anyone, they ascribe those political views to themselves when they vote (and answer exit polls). If we're not allowed to look at the way groups of people vote, we might as well throw out the entire field of polling, because that's all that field does.

I never ascribed political views to individuals, either. 70% of a group voting one particular way still means 30% didn't vote that way, but it's also an above-supermajority level of support that indicates a relatively uniform opinion across that group.

In this case, that opinion was that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, and it was further supported by significant political institutions coordinating with out-of-state backers to mobilize the group to vote in favor of Prop 8. The cherry on top was the bigoted rhetoric such as "gays don't deserve our support because they were never 3/5ths of a person".

You can't just buddy up with incredibly regressive organizations (who themselves have a history of loving over black people) and spout bigoted rhetoric and then flush it down the memory hole, either. If this were the Mormon church trying to flush the way they treated black people down the memory hole, you'd never try to argue that popular institutional actions didn't matter because the church was a group of individuals. I'm willing to accept that the black community "evolved" on this issue recently, but that hadn't happened in 2008 and it's not proper to pretend that it had.

I'm going to be as delicate as I can here. You have a bigoted view of black people. I shouldn't have to defend myself because people whose only characteristic I share with is a measure of melanin voted a certain way. You don't see a black person, you see a representative of black people. And that is a cudgel that anyone familiar with history and any sort of empathy should stay well clear of.

* # ¿ Jun 6, 2014 00:42
  • Quote
  • Locked thread
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Politics Thread for May: Everything is fucked, emphasis on everything.