thejeff --
I'm not the Thought Police, man. Nor the Word Police.
Regarding racism: Acts 13:1 -- the leadership of an early congregation of Christians consisted of a Jew, a Hellenic Jew, an African, an Arab, and the childhood friend of a prominent politician. We could do with more of that, whether involving Christians or not. That's what I would like to see. Likewise on the sexism angle.
Wrong is wrong, man. I won't endorse it.
Globalization has been one of the greatest peace-making forces in the entirety of human history. To rail against the concept is astounding to me from a progressive standpoint. To oppose globalization is to be in favor of putting the working class at greater risk of dying in wars.
Sorry about that. You are correct Irontruth, and I'm sorry for using the word when I should have selected something more specific. I'm not against the general concept of global interaction, I'm against the version of it that is presented by crony capitalism. I take the example of trade, I'm for FAIR trade, not FREE trade. I want fair globalization, not free globalization.
Thanks for pointing that out. I will select more precise words in the future.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
thejeff --
I'm not the Thought Police, man. Nor the Word Police.
Regarding racism: Acts 13:1 -- the leadership of an early congregation of Christians consisted of a Jew, a Hellenic Jew, an African, an Arab, and the childhood friend of a prominent politician. We could do with more of that, whether involving Christians or not. That's what I would like to see. Likewise on the sexism angle.
Wrong is wrong, man. I won't endorse it.
What the what?
If anyone's curious, the actual verse is "Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul." (NIV)
...Explaining this in more detail would take awhile. XD It's also not the purpose of this thread, so I'm sure the mods would prefer I didn't get too off-track.
What what?
And, thanks, Rednal! Definitely trying to avoid going too far in other directions. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't know that Jane Sanders used to be a Vermont senator whose husband served as a salesman / surrogate for her misguided policies. Huh. Learn something new everyday.Don't forget the article's inherent sexism.
Cause we see a whole lot of articles blaming men for what their wife did at her previous job....
The article does spend time on Hillary herself, but it also talks about what Bill did an awful lot. Does it talk about Sander's wife at all? Heck, did any article ever? Hyperbole, I'm sure that there was at least one article that talked about her, possibly even a handful. The point is that male candidates are never asked to account for their wife's behavior.
Just to be clear, the best you got is a sarcastic comment framed as a fictional account. That's your proof there's no sexism.
Pardon me if I'm not swayed by this supreme display of eloquence and facts.
It is however fair to say we've never seen parallel situation, where a man is running for a high office which his wife used to hold and during which he served as a spokesperson for her policies. Certainly not on the presidential level and as far as I know not as a Senator or Governor either.
I think it very likely they would still be treated very differently, but the situation is very different than focusing on Jane Sanders work outside of politics (or any of Trump's wives, for that matter.)
I agree it's an unusual situation.
My complaint isn't that Jane Sanders specifically isn't a target. That's an example. Rather that male candidates aren't judged by their wives. Sure, 1-2% of articles might be about their wives, but I'd wager the % is even lower than that.
Bill is actually mentioned in that article more times than Hillary. I think a strong case could be made against Hillary by looking at HER record (which is included in the article) and mentioning Bill only as a matter of context. Instead, entire...
Sorry, guys, been away.
Accusations of whitesplaining and sexism to defend Hillary's record on welfare reform and the crime bill in the '90s. Truly Adolph Reed (don't worry, a black man despite the name Adolph) was correct when he called identity politics "the left wing of neoliberalism."
The "super predator" comment coming from her speech, as First Lady, supporting the crime bill needs no documentation, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong. She lobbied liberal lawmakers to pass it, says every article I've ever looked up.
She bragged in her 2003 autobiography that when she and Bill left the White House, welfare rolls had been slashed by 60%. She continued to champion the welfare reform bill until 2008. I can go get links substantiating those, if you like. If not, I'll just skip to another article from The Nation.
Why It Matters That Hillary Clinton Championed Welfare Reform
I don't know, maybe you'll think that one's sexist, too.
She, to this day I believe, but you guys would know better than me, considers Bill's term in office, along with Obama's, to be part of the legacy that she is running on.
For example, Hillary Clinton Confidently Embraces Bill Clinton’s Economic Record.
But that's about economics, Comrade Anklebiter, what does that have to do with race? Well, hypothetical interlocutor, almost everything in the United States has to do with race, but, if you read the Michelle Alexander piece above, you will discover that one of the main reasons that the economy seemed so good under Bill, why unemployment seemed so down, was because they were finding all the black people they could and throwing them into jail and prisoners don't count as part of the unemployed.
I see there's pages and pages since I last popped in, but it's my Friday afternoon, I'm gonna get drunk and read Das Kapital.
Anklebiter out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because your opinions are unpopular or because you refuse to engage in democratic compromise doesn't mean that the system itself has marginalized you.
Democratic compromise isn't running our government, people buying our government is.
Racism = Bad Thing.
Sexism = Bad Thing.
Bigotry = Bad Thing.
Crony Capitalism = Bad Thing.
Wrong = Bad Thing.
Bad Thing = No Vote From Me.
Is that any clearer?
I'm more than willing to acknowledge that democratic compromise isn't running our government - the majority party of our legislature literally has the publicly stated goal of not allowing any legislation supported by the other side to become law. But I don't agree that our government is bought. That's a reductionist view that isn't particularly helpful in developing a meaningful understanding of the problems we face.
Racism = Bad Thing.
Sexism = Bad Thing.
Bigotry = Bad Thing.
Crony Capitalism = Bad Thing.Wrong = Bad Thing.
Bad Thing = No Vote From Me.
Is that any clearer?
Good luck finding your living saint to support. I'm sure eventually someone will pass your purity test. One day.
I'm more than willing to acknowledge that democratic compromise isn't running our government - the majority party of our legislature literally has the publicly stated goal of not allowing any legislation supported by the other side to become law. But I don't agree that our government is bought. That's a reductionist view that isn't particularly helpful in developing a meaningful understanding of the problems we face.
It may not be bought, but it is for sale. :-(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm more than willing to acknowledge that democratic compromise isn't running our government - the majority party of our legislature literally has the publicly stated goal of not allowing any legislation supported by the other side to become law. But I don't agree that our government is bought. That's a reductionist view that isn't particularly helpful in developing a meaningful understanding of the problems we face.It may not be bought, but it is for sale. :-(
I agree. And one of the two major parties has a platform plank dedicated to fixing a huge part of that problem.
There it is. A Third Way. Or One Hundredth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good luck finding your living saint to support. I'm sure eventually someone will pass your purity test. One day.Racism = Bad Thing.
Sexism = Bad Thing.
Bigotry = Bad Thing.
Crony Capitalism = Bad Thing.Wrong = Bad Thing.
Bad Thing = No Vote From Me.
Is that any clearer?
As I've pointed out before: the only person with whom I agree on every single issue is me, and I'm not running (nor would I have even Jill Stein's chance of winning if I did).
You find the candidate who's running who matches you on more issues than not, cos no one is perfect.
I'm more than willing to acknowledge that democratic compromise isn't running our government - the majority party of our legislature literally has the publicly stated goal of not allowing any legislation supported by the other side to become law. But I don't agree that our government is bought. That's a reductionist view that isn't particularly helpful in developing a meaningful understanding of the problems we face.
congress literally doesn't care what you think
Calling it reductionist doesn't mean that it's wrong.
Our government IS bought.
And thats what prevents us from solving the problems facing us. The people buying government need to make sure it stays bought, and to that end they bring up a lot of fake grarg issues to keep people voting to send money up the ladder.
I'm more than willing to acknowledge that democratic compromise isn't running our government - the majority party of our legislature literally has the publicly stated goal of not allowing any legislation supported by the other side to become law. But I don't agree that our government is bought. That's a reductionist view that isn't particularly helpful in developing a meaningful understanding of the problems we face.congress literally doesn't care what you think
Calling it reductionist doesn't mean that it's wrong.
No, but the author of the study you just linked to calling your take overly simplistic probably does. (And there are plenty of other criticisms of that particular work beyond those of the guy who wrote it.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, but the author of the study you just linked to calling your take overly simplistic probably does. (And there are plenty of other criticisms of that particular work beyond those of the guy who wrote it.)I'm more than willing to acknowledge that democratic compromise isn't running our government - the majority party of our legislature literally has the publicly stated goal of not allowing any legislation supported by the other side to become law. But I don't agree that our government is bought. That's a reductionist view that isn't particularly helpful in developing a meaningful understanding of the problems we face.congress literally doesn't care what you think
Calling it reductionist doesn't mean that it's wrong.
But still, not wrong.
Show me where the error is or don't pretend that you're bringing up an error.
No, but the author of the study you just linked to calling your take overly simplistic probably does. (And there are plenty of other criticisms of that particular work beyond those of the guy who wrote it.)I'm more than willing to acknowledge that democratic compromise isn't running our government - the majority party of our legislature literally has the publicly stated goal of not allowing any legislation supported by the other side to become law. But I don't agree that our government is bought. That's a reductionist view that isn't particularly helpful in developing a meaningful understanding of the problems we face.congress literally doesn't care what you think
Calling it reductionist doesn't mean that it's wrong.
But still, not wrong.
Show me where the error is or don't pretend that you're bringing up an error.
"People mean different things by the term oligarchy. One reason why I shy away from it is it brings to mind this image of a very small number of very wealthy people who are pulling strings behind the scenes to determine what government does. And I think it's more complicated than that. It's not only Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers or Bill Gates or George Soros who are shaping government policy-making. So that's my concern with what at least many people would understand oligarchy to mean. What "Economic Elite Domination" and "Biased Pluralism" mean is that rather than average citizens of moderate means having an important role in determining policy, ability to shape outcomes is restricted to people at the top of the income distribution and to organized groups that represent primarily -- although not exclusively -- business."
It isn't about government simply being "bought". The notion that money is being translated into policy isn't one that is supported by the literature. It's that individuals who have money tend to be the ones whose preferred policies become reality. This could be for any number of reasons that are more complex than simply "buying" government.
The problem with your particular line of thinking is that it can then be used to demonize the act of funding politics at large (and often is). It's the same simplistic thought that led people to criticize Clinton for contributions she received from the financial sector, for example, without enough nuance being introduced to convey that the contributions were almost all from individuals. You have literally millions of people who actually believe that a significant donation to a presidential campaign means that you will get a favor in return. That's an actual thing that people believe.
I'll be the first to agree that the degree to which wealth and politics are intertwined is problematic. But this isn't an issue to tackle with a rhetorical sledgehammer. We have a pretty clear path to improving things, and one of the two major parties is on board with that path.
It's that individuals who have money tend to be the ones whose preferred policies become reality. This could be for any number of reasons that are more complex than simply "buying" government.
That seems to be some far-out metal gymnastics.
Wealthy elites give money to politicians, who do things that favor the wealthy elites. But that is just some kind of coincidence? I have never heard that idea before.
Also, thanks for pointing out my improper use of statistically insignificant. It is good to know things like that.
To clarify my earlier comment, I don't feel marginalized in the presidential election because of Donald and Hillary. I feel marginalized because the electoral college gerrymanders my vote into irrelevance. If I want my vote to have even the chance of an effect, I would need to move to a different state. That is a piss poor example of democracy. Also, I'm not proud of any of this, but it is reality.
That seems to be some far-out metal gymnastics.
Wealthy elites give money to politicians, who do things that favor the wealthy elites. But that is just some kind of coincidence? I have never heard that idea before.
Yeah, it seems highly likely to me that we're looking at causation, not simply correlation as Scott seems to be suggesting.
To clarify my earlier comment, I don't feel marginalized in the presidential election because of Donald and Hillary. I feel marginalized because the electoral college gerrymanders my vote into irrelevance. If I want my vote to have even the chance of an effect, I would need to move to a different state. That is a piss poor example of democracy. Also, I'm not proud of any of this, but it is reality.
Agreed on the electoral college. It needs to go.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, does nobody read these?The First Amendment: Constitutionally Protected Speech
The rights of citizenship do not stop at the ballot box. Freedom of speech includes the right to devote resources to whatever cause or candidate one supports. We oppose any restrictions or conditions that would discourage citizens from participating in the public square or limit their ability to promote their ideas, such as requiring private organizations to publicly disclose their donors to the government. Limits on political speech serve only to protect the powerful and insulate incumbent officeholders. We support repeal of federal restrictions on political parties in McCain-Feingold, raising or repealing contribution limits, protecting the political speech of advocacy groups, corporations, and labor unions, and protecting political speech on the internet. We likewise call for an end to the so-called Fairness Doctrine, and support free-market approaches to free speech unregulated by government.
We believe the forced funding of political candidates through union dues and other mandatory contributions violates the First Amendment. Just as Americans have a First Amendment right to devote resources to favored candidates or views, they have a First Amendment right not to be forced to individually support individuals or ideologies that they oppose. We agree with Thomas Jefferson that “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
Wait a minute, are you suggesting that one of the major parties explicitly put a plank supporting crony capitalism in their party platform? And one major party did not?
Democrats support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo. We need to end secret, unaccountable money in politics by requiring, through executive order or legislation, significantly more disclosure and transparency—by outside groups, federal contractors, and public corporations to their shareholders. We need to amplify the voices of the American people through a small donor matching public financing system. We need to overhaul and strengthen the Federal Election Commission so that there is real enforcement of campaign finance laws. And we need to fight to eliminate super PACs and outside spending abuses.
But that would mean that there is actually a difference between the parties that should matter to people opposed to crony capitalism.....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't about government simply being "bought". The notion that money is being translated into policy isn't one that is supported by the literature. It's that individuals who have money tend to be the ones whose preferred policies become reality. This could be for any number of reasons that are more complex than simply "buying" government.
Seriously? Maybe Ayn Rand was right and they're all good looking rock stars with mesmerizing abs. Or their obviously superior brains allow them to psychically control washington using the power of the washington monument as an amplifier.
Or maybe it's obvious effect that people with money can pick which politicians get to run, bribe the politicians once they're in office, promise them billion dollar jobs when they leave, and then use those votes to get themselves more money by using money. A certain degree of epistemic nihlism is required in academia but isn't practical for making decisions.
The problem with your particular line of thinking is that it can then be used to demonize the act of funding politics at large (and often is).
Absolutely not. "Our government is bought" is not a line of thinking. It's a starting point. It's a true starting point which is what you need to start with if you want to get from where you are to where you want to be. What you do from there is a seperate issue.
"Buy it back" becomes the first possible solution.
You have literally millions of people who actually believe that a significant donation to a presidential campaign means that you will get a favor in return. That's an actual thing that people believe.
Tell that to the oil industry that got to lease our military.
We have a pretty clear path to improving things, and one of the two major parties is on board with that path.
Overturn citizens united
Moratorium on politicians working for private companies after they leave office.
Publically funded elections
No corporate shell games.
end gerrymandering and draw up districts by an independent group
Even putting aside obvious bribes, people who want something to be true have a tendency to find the right results. This is why corporate funding of studies can tend to be a little bit suspect. A politician is likely to develop a bias in favor of the policies that allow them to keep receiving huge campaign donations, even if they're trying to be completely honest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it seems highly likely to me that we're looking at causation, not simply correlation as Scott seems to be suggesting.That seems to be some far-out metal gymnastics.
Wealthy elites give money to politicians, who do things that favor the wealthy elites. But that is just some kind of coincidence? I have never heard that idea before.
Yes, but which direction does the causation go?
Person one campaigns on a set of policies that I like and that will benefit me; person two is campaigning on a set of policies that I don't like and will hurt me. Whom will I support?
Irrespective of how much money I have, I'm going to support person 1. But my support may be more useful if I have a lot of money (and connections).
Does this mean that I'm buying her policies, or does this mean that she's pandering for my votes? Or does it mean that she's doing what she's supposed to be doing, offering her idea in the marketplace, and letting people decide what they like?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Repost from one of the convention threads, for fun:
Despite What Bernie Sanders Says, The Democratic Party Platform Doesn't Matter
And, again, my two favorite quotes because they come from politicians I've been in the same room with (you get to hear all the Massachusetts Democrats when you're in Teamsters Local 25):
"Faced with Sanders’ disproportionate attention to a nonbinding document, commentators have said it is important because Democrats have made it matter by focusing on it. But many aren’t.
"'I’ve never read the platform,' Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Mike Capuano said. 'It’s a tempest in a teapot. I am not beholden to the Democratic platform. I don’t know anybody who is.'
"'But it’s important to some people,' Capuano added.
"Former Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, who helped write the Democrats’ 2012 platform, told Slate: 'I don’t remember what was in it.'"
PS: Yea, I'm not Conservative Anklebiter on this because I don't really care anymore.
That's too bad. I particularly like it when you are talking to Pillbug Toenibbler. I just wish we could get Anklebiter Humperdink in here, too, and any other Doodlebug Anklebiter parody homage avatars in the same room.
But if government is so bought, then there's no chance of any of that happening, since it would have to be government that does it all.
There's little chance of it happening.
As a side note, I don't know about "Moratorium on politicians working for private companies after they leave office". Who qualifies? Is this at every level? Is a one term Representative barred from ever working in the private sector again? State legislators? They're not all independently wealthy.
I'm all for limits on the revolving door between Congress and industry, but that seems a bit much.
One term representative or senator , barred for 10 years. Kick up their severance package to compensate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some say the Worldwound is wrong. I say "Hey at least it hands out XP!"
Some say the Worldwound is wrong. I say "Hey at least it hands out XP!"
Sure, if you're one of the .0001% that's part of the PC class that only finds level appropriate encounters. For the rest of the population running into a batezu at first level is a bit of a career ender, and the PC's of course told us we shouldn't have taken peasant levels..
Norse,
The Worldwound doesn't have devils... At least not on the inside.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Norse,
The Worldwound doesn't have devils... At least not on the inside.
Knowledge planes is not a class skill for peasants! :)
But it should be for a legendary wolf like yourself, Norse...
However yes, peasants would get eaten more than low level adventures.
Fighters are just too damn chewy.
They had the office? I didn't realize that the president was a joint office.
...I can look at what [the Clintons] actually did when they had the office for 8 years.Well, Hillary not actually being elected did not stop her from pushing for The Clinton health care plan, known officially as the Health Security Act, in 1993. "Her leading role in the project was unprecedented for a presidential spouse.[6][7] This unusual decision by the president to put his wife in charge of the project has been attributed to several factors, such as his desire to emphasize his personal commitment to the enterprise."
I should note that this is probably the best thing Hillary has done, and if she stayed at, she would be a far superior candidate today.
Alas, "She received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and insurance companies for her 2006 re-election in the Senate, including several insurance companies that were members of the Health Insurance Association of America that helped defeat the Clinton Health Plan in 1994.[14] Charles N. Kahn III, a Republican who was executive vice president of the Health Insurance Association in 1993 and 1994, refers to his previous battles with Clinton as "ancient history," and says "she is extremely knowledgeable about health care and has become a Congressional leader on the issue."[14]"
Given her statements about, "putting Bill in charge of the economy" and her ties to corporations and neoliberal organizations like the CFR, it is fairly obvious what her plans are. Oh yeah, there is also her time as a Senator from NY, and also Secretary of State, where she also pursued a neoliberal agenda.
EDIT: There is an excellent Frontline episode about the Clinton's push for a plan compared with...
She also reversed Bill's position on a bad bankruptcy bill. Unfortunately when First Lady Clinton became Senator Clinton, the first thing she did was reverse herself on what was virtually the same bill.
It occurs to me that in my fervor to push the Standing Rock story, I have neglected the other cool thing that is being, as far as I can tell, under-reported in the MSM which is appropriate given talk of the Clintons and the crime bill:
Also, since I alluded to Living History above, I chuckled when this article came across my feed:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*writes note to self* Write a tell all book about being a 12th level paladin of Torm during the 1989 scares. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two more articles that came across my feed and caught my fancy,
New Poll Finds That Hillary Supporters Are Pretty Racist Too
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two more articles that came across my feed and caught my fancy,
New Poll Finds That Hillary Supporters Are Pretty Racist Too
I had a reply that got ate a day or two ago about the racism.
I think the Democratic party is pretty racist. It's subtler than Republican racism, but it still exists. It's also a good example why I'm an incrementalist (though I appreciate hardcore rhetoric, it reminds us of how far we need to go).
In the "civil rights" era, a lot of victories were won and progress was made. The thing is that it's harder to deal with the more subtle and insidious varieties when you have to first convince people to stop lynching you, setting dogs on you and allowing you to participate in society like a human being.
If your roommate is trying to stab you with a knife, it might not be the best time to resolve why they never contribute to purchasing toilet paper. Fix the worst thing first, worry about the smaller stuff later.
I know I harbor a lot of racist behavior. I try to be aware of it. I try to avoid it. I would like to think I'm successful, but I know it's doubtful. Hopefully by being better than the generation before me and encouraging others to be aware and keep changing, things will be better after I'm gone. I hope the Democratic party (well, all parties really) can do the same.
I think the Democrats are worse than a lot of people either realize or want to admit. I think we're still better than the other major alternative, but we do have major problems and need to fix them.
I highly recommend this documentary for understanding what produced the current situation in Iraq. It is by The Guardian, and gives a perspective that I have not seen in any US media.
Oh, didn't see this before. Good flick.
Pretty sure most Washington DC politicians are corrupt depending on your use of that word. It's the nature of the system.Two more articles that came across my feed and caught my fancy,
New Poll Finds That Hillary Supporters Are Pretty Racist Too
There's that, I guess.
Two more articles that came across my feed and caught my fancy,
New Poll Finds That Hillary Supporters Are Pretty Racist Too
I had a reply that got ate a day or two ago about the racism.
I think the Democratic party is pretty racist. It's subtler than Republican racism, but it still exists. It's also a good example why I'm an incrementalist (though I appreciate hardcore rhetoric, it reminds us of how far we need to go).
In the "civil rights" era, a lot of victories were won and progress was made. The thing is that it's harder to deal with the more subtle and insidious varieties when you have to first convince people to stop lynching you, setting dogs on you and allowing you to participate in society like a human being.
If your roommate is trying to stab you with a knife, it might not be the best time to resolve why they never contribute to purchasing toilet paper. Fix the worst thing first, worry about the smaller stuff later...
I'm not sure how subtle it feels in Rahm Emanuel's Chicago, Tom Barrett's Milwaukee, Bill de Blasio's New York, your own Betsy's Minneapolis, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake's Baltimore or any of the other Democratic-controlled flashpoints in the new civil rights movement or, for that matter, in the gulag archipelago the Clintons helped build.
What's weird is that my dislike for the Democratic party is in large part why I have so much disdain for incrementalism. To me, that's their turf, and they've demonstrated how well it works.
The Democratic party has plenty of racist elements, especially after it started to swerve with its "we're gonna be HIP ABOUT WAR and be TOUGH ON CRIME now" stance in the 90s. And let's not forget where the Democrats started out.
Two more articles that came across my feed and caught my fancy,
New Poll Finds That Hillary Supporters Are Pretty Racist Too
I had a reply that got ate a day or two ago about the racism.
I think the Democratic party is pretty racist. It's subtler than Republican racism, but it still exists. It's also a good example why I'm an incrementalist (though I appreciate hardcore rhetoric, it reminds us of how far we need to go).
In the "civil rights" era, a lot of victories were won and progress was made. The thing is that it's harder to deal with the more subtle and insidious varieties when you have to first convince people to stop lynching you, setting dogs on you and allowing you to participate in society like a human being.
If your roommate is trying to stab you with a knife, it might not be the best time to resolve why they never contribute to purchasing toilet paper. Fix the worst thing first, worry about the smaller stuff later...
I'm not sure how subtle it feels in Rahm Emanuel's Chicago, Tom Barrett's Milwaukee, Bill de Blasio's New York, your own Betsy's Minneapolis, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake's Baltimore or any of the other Democratic-controlled flashpoints in the new civil rights movement or, for that matter, in the gulag archipelago the Clintons helped build.
Did you see the part where I agreed with you? There is a lot of s&@& that's still f#&~ed up. Do you understand my point?
New Poll Finds That Hillary Supporters Are Pretty Racist Too
Alternate headline using same data:
New Poll Finds That Hillary Supporters Are Less Racist Than The Average Person.
Nah. The average person doesn't support Trump OR Clinton, and therefor were not included in the poll.*
*Not saying people are not more or less racist, just that this particular poll doesn't include people who don't support a candidate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Not saying people are not more or less racist, just that this particular poll doesn't include people who don't support a candidate.
Given the differences between the two there simply aren't enough "others" to raise the bar above the clinton supporters.
Or to put it another way, thats as good as america's gonna get for a while.