Here's the statics by race. I would argue that it has more to do with economic status than race. If you control for economic status than the race issue wouldn't be as stark. How can we combat that? I'm a subscriber to the Next-door app and it amazes me how many of the negative posts are from the 'white-trash' trailer parks. The problem is deeper than race. How do we combat the real problem, poverty?
I am certainly not someone who is only gonna care about it when it's an African-American. That video from Arizona a few years ago where the cop had the guy crawling on the floor before uploading an assault rifle into him was ghastly. The excuse from people defending the cop was the EXACT same. The guy's arm twitched, so clearly the cop had to shoot, despite the guy lying prone and terrified on the ground.
The problem is that cops are trained to accept NO risk, which, frankly, is not what their job is. The risk is WHY you have the gun and taser. With that comes some modicum of responsibility for people who, when you are apprehending them, have been convicted of nothing. They are still among the people you swore to protect. If the #1 priority of a cop is to "come home at the end of the day" then this isn't the profession for you.
Furthermore, it isn't a uniquely dangerous job, despite the fact that they are constantly interacting with criminals. The deaths on the job per 100,000 doesn't even place it in the top 15 most dangerous jobs, and most of those deaths have to do with traffic accidents. If people are gonna argue police shootings aren't a problem based on the numbers, you also have to acknowledge policing is a less dangerous job than that of a bartender or roofer. Neither of whom have the right to murder with impunity. Shit, soldiers in combat have far more strict rules of engagement than American police.
Here's the statics by race. I would argue that it has more to do with economic status than race. If you control for economic status than the race issue wouldn't be as stark. How can we combat that? I'm a subscriber to the Next-door app and it amazes me how many of the negative posts are from the 'white-trash' trailer parks. The problem is deeper than race. How do we combat the real problem, poverty?
I am certainly not someone who is only gonna care about it when it's an African-American. That video from Arizona a few years ago where the cop had the guy crawling on the floor before uploading an assault rifle into him was ghastly. The excuse from people defending the cop was the EXACT same. The guy's arm twitched, so clearly the cop had to shoot, despite the guy lying prone and terrified on the ground.
The problem is that cops are trained to accept NO risk, which, frankly, is not what their job is. The risk is WHY you have the gun and taser. With that comes some modicum of responsibility for people who, when you are apprehending them, have been convicted of nothing. They are still among the people you swore to protect. If the #1 priority of a cop is to "come home at the end of the day" then this isn't the profession for you.
Furthermore, it isn't a uniquely dangerous job, despite the fact that they are constantly interacting with criminals. The deaths on the job per 100,000 doesn't even place it in the top 15 most dangerous jobs, and most of those deaths have to do with traffic accidents. If people are gonna argue police shootings aren't a problem based on the numbers, you also have to acknowledge policing is less dangerous than that of a bartender or roofer. Neither of whomnhave the right to murder with impunity. Shit, soldiers in combat have far more strict rules of engagement than American police.
I don't disagree with you necessarily, but I'd argue that it isn't as simple as you seem to think it is. The police statistics are skewed by the fact that not all of them work in impoverished inner-city environments. What are the statistics when you only look at high crime neighborhoods?
Here's the statics by race. I would argue that it has more to do with economic status than race. If you control for economic status than the race issue wouldn't be as stark. How can we combat that? I'm a subscriber to the Next-door app and it amazes me how many of the negative posts are from the 'white-trash' trailer parks. The problem is deeper than race. How do we combat the real problem, poverty?
I am certainly not someone who is only gonna care about it when it's an African-American. That video from Arizona a few years ago where the cop had the guy crawling on the floor before uploading an assault rifle into him was ghastly. The excuse from people defending the cop was the EXACT same. The guy's arm twitched, so clearly the cop had to shoot, despite the guy lying prone and terrified on the ground.
The problem is that cops are trained to accept NO risk, which, frankly, is not what their job is. The risk is WHY you have the gun and taser. With that comes some modicum of responsibility for people who, when you are apprehending them, have been convicted of nothing. They are still among the people you swore to protect. If the #1 priority of a cop is to "come home at the end of the day" then this isn't the profession for you.
Furthermore, it isn't a uniquely dangerous job, despite the fact that they are constantly interacting with criminals. The deaths on the job per 100,000 doesn't even place it in the top 15 most dangerous jobs, and most of those deaths have to do with traffic accidents. If people are gonna argue police shootings aren't a problem based on the numbers, you also have to acknowledge policing is less dangerous than that of a bartender or roofer. Neither of whomnhave the right to murder with impunity. Shit, soldiers in combat have far more strict rules of engagement than American police.
I don't disagree with you necessarily, but I'd argue that it isn't as simple as you seem to think it is. The police statistics are skewed by the fact that not all of them work in impoverished inner-city environments. What are the statistics when you only look at high crime neighborhoods?
I don't have an "answer" per se. All I know is other countries don't kill criminal suspects at this rate, and they don't have mass shootings literally every 3 days. These are American problems. No other countries similar to ours have them. Alot of people who live here think we're "exceptional". Well, we are, but in a way that causes those to the North and across the pond to recoil in horror, not admiration. We have too many fucking guns.
The problem is complex, so is the solution. Guns are part of the problem, but I'm not sure that there is any possible way to remove guns from the equation in our country. Barring trying to disarm our populace, which would likely get bloody, there may be other ways to approach this dilemma. How do we tackle the high-crime areas that are the crux of the issue? The following article describes the problem and some potential solutions. Unfortunately, this doesn't address the lone-shooter with mental problems that is behind many of our high profile mass shootings. I'm all for tackling that problem separately.
There seems to be a unique opportunity within the grasp of the Democratic Party. Major corporations are pretty much on board for almost all of the 'inclusion' agenda of liberals. If the Democrats would switch their focus to poverty, rather than social issues, they could make a historic rise in power.. Leave the social issues to business. Let them be the fall-guys and focus on making the average person's life better. Business has now figured out that inclusion is good for their bottom-line so they're already on-board with that. Without the social hot-button issues, the GOP will have to change with the times. Just a thought I had...
Another one 72 hours later. The 13-year old kid in Chicago did have a gun. He was ordered to put it down. He did. He was told to put his hands up. He did. Then he was shot anyway. The police appear to have been (shock!!!) lying about what happened right up til the moment the tape was released. Kind of gives food for thought as to why the guy in Brooklyn Center would flee. Because compliance will not save you. The exact same excuses are being trotted out. Either suspected criminals have rights, or they don't. If people want cops to just kill everyone they suspect is in commission of a crime, they should have the balls to just admit it instead of dancing around what they actually believe. Because as far as I tell, there isn't a single criminal act, no matter how major or minor, that doesn't justify homicide by cop if that happens to take place in the minds of alot of people "Don't start none, won't be none" is not the basis of our justice system.
The article here from CNN doesn't seem to corroborate your viewpoint. The kid's family's lawyer doesn't even know if it's worth a lawsuit yet. Not as cut and dry as some of the other cases...
Edit: Just because shit happens doesn't mean that everything that happens is shit...
Was the officer fired upon by the kid? Was the officer's life in danger as the kid ran away, who was being chased by a police officer with his gun already drawn?
The officer didn't even see if the kid had a gun, the officer presumed the kid had a gun because he had already quickly frisked down the 21 year old that the kid was with. The police scan that came through, just said "shots were fired" in the vicinity of the two as Chicago uses computers to detect if a gun was fired. No one saw these two fire a gun. It was just the officer's presumption that they were armed, and that presumption I guess warrants a death sentence.
What's the line I read earlier. A cop's blue fear is not worth a person's (black) life. The sad part is, the person who is terrified in this situation was the kid, not the cop, and the outcome shows he was terrified for good reason.
Yes, he was terrified for good reason. He had a gun and was running from the cops. That's completely different from the examples of police shooting unarmed civilians. It just is. Let's see if any lawsuit is filed on this kid's behalf. If not, then this incident isn't going to help your argument.
Ok scenario two.
The kid doesn't run, reveals he has a gun and gets shot while attempting to 'drop it' again. The police rolled up on these two with their guns drawn prior to knowing if they were armed or not. Remember no one saw these shots fired. They were only heard. They were guilty in the eyes of the police officers prior to any proof being established.
And I'd love the family to sue on second amendment rights. I'd like to see the hoops politicians on the right would need to jump through to both placate Blue Lives Matter & Second Amendment Rights while not appearing bigoted in any way.
Having a gun in your possession doesn't warrant a death sentence. Running from the cops does not warrant a death sentence. A cop being afraid for his life because he didn't assess the situation, determine his surroundings (no cover) or wait for back up doesn't warrant a death sentence.
A child lost his life to a police officer and we want to pretend that the officer didn't do anything wrong because a handgun (and my guess, an unloaded one due to the amount of shots that were recorded being fired) was recovered at the scene.
Considering many people will classify any police killing as a "good shooting" (I've seen this repulsive term thrown out with absolute glee consistently over the last 24 hours) even if the person who was shot smoked weed at any time in their life or once had detention in 6th grade, being in a possession of a gun absolutely means it will be seen as such.
You don't have to have a spotless existence to expect not to be killed during an arrest. But I go back to the absolutely heinous case of Elijah McClain in Colorado. A kid who literally did nothing but go to the store to buy his siblings some snacks. Was wearing headphones, and a facemask in weather warmer than most people would because he suffered from anemia, which causes you to be cold. Someone calls him in for making hand motions listening to his music, cops roll up on him, he doesn't hear them (and why would he expect to be approached since he committed no crime other than offending the sensibilities of window watcher), they tackled and pinned him to the ground, and had paramedics inject him with ketamine, which ended up killing him.
He was literally the "angel" everyone always demands police murder victims to be. He was on the autism spectrum. He played violin for kittens at an animal shelter. And the police department itself was forced to admit last month they had NO justifiable reason for even stopping him, much less what actually happened. And I STILL heard people defending the cops. Cops who, by the way, went to the site of where it all went down and took smiling selfies like the ghouls they are. So frankly, I don't really give a fuck what excuse or technicality people use to justify this stuff anymore. Because even when there isn't one, they find one or make one up.
I think it's telling our resident Canadian poster is the one who sees this the most clearly. Because in almost all other civilized countries, the way this goes down is absolute madness. But many Americans do absolutely believe that non-compliance in a traffic stop or during an attempted arrest IS justification for a death sentence. They just do.
I don't believe that at all. I do believe, however that when powder burns are found on somebody's gloves, it generally means that they discharged a firearm. Who was the kid shooting at? It might have been a drug dealer or some other transaction went south and warranted a violent response. Who the Hell knows? All I know is that this poor kid wasn't in a situation that he should have been in. He should have been sweating his next math quiz, not wondering if he should take a shot at somebody or not. The system failed him. Let's talk about what should be done to change the system, not blame a cop who probably is now a raging alcoholic because of that selfsame system.
the gl0ves were on the 21 year old not the child.
Then child was there because if they were caught with the gun, the juvenile would get a lesser sentence than the adult. The child is a victim in very circumstance of this scenario.
It also doesn't matter who was shot at. It wasn't the police, therefore the police lives were not in jeopardy. The police does not have the right to be a person's jury, judge and executioner.
No one is arguing a cop can never use lethal force. If it is evident that person is going to end your life or someone else's, then no one would be talking about this. In what scenario that we've seen over and over for the past x number of years has that been the case?? At the absolute most, we get some minor body movement, or someone attempts to get back in their car with their back turned towards the cop. The police are using lethal force on the off-chance these people MIGHT grab a weapon to use on them. And where are the damn tasers in all these incidents?? Shit, those things are bad enough, and could be considered torture devices on their own merits. But they never even go to that option. It's just straight for the gun every time.
The "danger" to the cops in almost every one of these cases is always hypothetical. It COULD happen, so they treat it as if it's 100% certainty that it WILL happen. Not all that different from the Cheney Doctrine in the Bush years, which basically boiled dow to "if there is a 1% chance a nation could develop WMD, we need to bomb their country back to the stone-age." And to tie-in even more with that era, the surplus military equipment from the war on terror was given to every backwater police force in the country. And, lo and behold, they started acting like occupying armies. The same stuff that happened over the summer is going on in Brooklyn Center tonight. Cops taking pictures and making records of journalists. One claims a cop punched him in the face. Police deliberately charging a protest line engaging in no violence whatsoever. I wish I'd kept an archive of the unprovoked attacks by police last summer that was on film.
There seems to be a unique opportunity within the grasp of the Democratic Party. Major corporations are pretty much on board for almost all of the 'inclusion' agenda of liberals. If the Democrats would switch their focus to poverty, rather than social issues, they could make a historic rise in power.. Leave the social issues to business. Let them be the fall-guys and focus on making the average person's life better. Business has now figured out that inclusion is good for their bottom-line so they're already on-board with that. Without the social hot-button issues, the GOP will have to change with the times. Just a thought I had...
The Democratic party could definitely score a lot more political points if they threw trans people like me under the bus. I'm glad they don't, because otherwise we have no one else in government to protect us.
My friends get mistreated at their jobs for their gender and the only reason they have any recourse is because of anti-discrimination laws. If you think big business supports inclusion, you couldn't be more wrong. A corporation will post a pro-BLM tweet on Twitter for PR and then go right back to discriminating against people of color. Pretending to be woke doesn't mean they're any less bigoted than anyone else.
I agree that Democrats have a strong incentive to let minorities get treated like garbage instead of standing up for us. But when people vote against good economic policy because they don't like minorities, the problem isn't that minorities are being treated too well by our government.
No, businesses don't want to protect us. The only reason your company's HR department has provisions against discrimination is because they don't want to get in trouble for breaking anti-discrimination laws, and even then discrimination still happens constantly.
There are a few places where big business actually does care about equality. Target, Starbucks, and HEB are relatively trans-friendly employers; they actually put it into policy. But if you're trans, there are a lot of places you simply can't work for, much less get treated the same as the other employees.
Fighting discrimination against minorities doesn't win you points with a majority that doesn't like them. You do it because it's right; not because you benefit.
I'm glad there's at least a few people in politics who don't want my friends bullied or fired or beaten up.
Things are bad enough as they are. I hate to think what life would be like for me if there was no one left to stand up for me.
There seems to be a unique opportunity within the grasp of the Democratic Party. Major corporations are pretty much on board for almost all of the 'inclusion' agenda of liberals. If the Democrats would switch their focus to poverty, rather than social issues, they could make a historic rise in power.. Leave the social issues to business. Let them be the fall-guys and focus on making the average person's life better. Business has now figured out that inclusion is good for their bottom-line so they're already on-board with that. Without the social hot-button issues, the GOP will have to change with the times. Just a thought I had...
The Democratic party could definitely score a lot more political points if they threw trans people like me under the bus. I'm glad they don't, because otherwise we have no one else in government to protect us.
My friends get mistreated at their jobs for their gender and the only reason they have any recourse is because of anti-discrimination laws. If you think big business supports inclusion, you couldn't be more wrong. A corporation will post a pro-BLM tweet on Twitter for PR and then go right back to discriminating against people of color. Pretending to be woke doesn't mean they're any less bigoted than anyone else.
I agree that Democrats have a strong incentive to let minorities get treated like garbage instead of standing up for us. But when people vote against good economic policy because they don't like minorities, the problem isn't that minorities are being treated too well by our government.
No, businesses don't want to protect us. The only reason your company's HR department has provisions against discrimination is because they don't want to get in trouble for breaking anti-discrimination laws, and even then discrimination still happens constantly.
There are a few places where big business actually does care about equality. Target, Starbucks, and HEB are relatively trans-friendly employers; they actually put it into policy. But if you're trans, there are a lot of places you simply can't work for, much less get treated the same as the other employees.
Fighting discrimination against minorities doesn't win you points with a majority that doesn't like them. You do it because it's right; not because you benefit.
I'm glad there's at least a few people in politics who don't want my friends bullied or fired or beaten up.
Things are bad enough as they are. I hate to think what life would be like for me if there was no one left to stand up for me.
All of this is true. However, I agree with @Balrog99's main point, that the possible solutions to poverty aren't being emphasized enough, generally speaking. Proof of this is that there is no consensus among economists on a universal solution to structural poverty. It's not even clear what the causes of the problem are. Personally, as a left-winger, I believe that the root of the problem consists in how a small elite appropriates surplus value generated by the masses. No mainstream economists would agree with that assessment though, they even question the existence of surplus value at the conceptual level. So this is indeed a discussion that we as a society must have. That does not mean that discussions about gender shouldn't be had, since they should.
There seems to be a unique opportunity within the grasp of the Democratic Party. Major corporations are pretty much on board for almost all of the 'inclusion' agenda of liberals. If the Democrats would switch their focus to poverty, rather than social issues, they could make a historic rise in power.. Leave the social issues to business. Let them be the fall-guys and focus on making the average person's life better. Business has now figured out that inclusion is good for their bottom-line so they're already on-board with that. Without the social hot-button issues, the GOP will have to change with the times. Just a thought I had...
The Democratic party could definitely score a lot more political points if they threw trans people like me under the bus. I'm glad they don't, because otherwise we have no one else in government to protect us.
My friends get mistreated at their jobs for their gender and the only reason they have any recourse is because of anti-discrimination laws. If you think big business supports inclusion, you couldn't be more wrong. A corporation will post a pro-BLM tweet on Twitter for PR and then go right back to discriminating against people of color. Pretending to be woke doesn't mean they're any less bigoted than anyone else.
I agree that Democrats have a strong incentive to let minorities get treated like garbage instead of standing up for us. But when people vote against good economic policy because they don't like minorities, the problem isn't that minorities are being treated too well by our government.
No, businesses don't want to protect us. The only reason your company's HR department has provisions against discrimination is because they don't want to get in trouble for breaking anti-discrimination laws, and even then discrimination still happens constantly.
There are a few places where big business actually does care about equality. Target, Starbucks, and HEB are relatively trans-friendly employers; they actually put it into policy. But if you're trans, there are a lot of places you simply can't work for, much less get treated the same as the other employees.
Fighting discrimination against minorities doesn't win you points with a majority that doesn't like them. You do it because it's right; not because you benefit.
I'm glad there's at least a few people in politics who don't want my friends bullied or fired or beaten up.
Things are bad enough as they are. I hate to think what life would be like for me if there was no one left to stand up for me.
All of this is true. However, I agree with @Balrog99's main point, that the possible solutions to poverty aren't being emphasized enough, generally speaking. Proof of this is that there is no consensus among economists on a universal solution to structural poverty. It's not even clear what the causes of the problem are. Personally, as a left-winger, I believe that the root of the problem consists in how a small elite appropriates surplus value generated by the masses. No mainstream economists would agree with that assessment though, they even question the existence of surplus value at the conceptual level. So this is indeed a discussion that we as a society must have. That does not mean that discussions about gender shouldn't be had, since they should.
I think a lot more could be done, but I also think it is not 100% fair to demand that all these things will be done under Biden. The Senate majority is razor thing, it is unlikely that any comprehensive program could pass under those circumstances. I will be pleasantly surprised if they manage to revert some of the tax cuts for the rich that were passed under Trump.
I think a lot more could be done, but I also think it is not 100% fair to demand that all these things will be done under Biden. The Senate majority is razor thing, it is unlikely that any comprehensive program could pass under those circumstances. I will be pleasantly surprised if they manage to revert some of the tax cuts for the rich that were passed under Trump.
I agree, that's why I phrased it in a general way. I wasn't referring to the USA in particular, since structural poverty is a worldwide phenomenon.
There seems to be a unique opportunity within the grasp of the Democratic Party. Major corporations are pretty much on board for almost all of the 'inclusion' agenda of liberals. If the Democrats would switch their focus to poverty, rather than social issues, they could make a historic rise in power.. Leave the social issues to business. Let them be the fall-guys and focus on making the average person's life better. Business has now figured out that inclusion is good for their bottom-line so they're already on-board with that. Without the social hot-button issues, the GOP will have to change with the times. Just a thought I had...
The Democratic party could definitely score a lot more political points if they threw trans people like me under the bus. I'm glad they don't, because otherwise we have no one else in government to protect us.
My friends get mistreated at their jobs for their gender and the only reason they have any recourse is because of anti-discrimination laws. If you think big business supports inclusion, you couldn't be more wrong. A corporation will post a pro-BLM tweet on Twitter for PR and then go right back to discriminating against people of color. Pretending to be woke doesn't mean they're any less bigoted than anyone else.
I agree that Democrats have a strong incentive to let minorities get treated like garbage instead of standing up for us. But when people vote against good economic policy because they don't like minorities, the problem isn't that minorities are being treated too well by our government.
No, businesses don't want to protect us. The only reason your company's HR department has provisions against discrimination is because they don't want to get in trouble for breaking anti-discrimination laws, and even then discrimination still happens constantly.
There are a few places where big business actually does care about equality. Target, Starbucks, and HEB are relatively trans-friendly employers; they actually put it into policy. But if you're trans, there are a lot of places you simply can't work for, much less get treated the same as the other employees.
Fighting discrimination against minorities doesn't win you points with a majority that doesn't like them. You do it because it's right; not because you benefit.
I'm glad there's at least a few people in politics who don't want my friends bullied or fired or beaten up.
Things are bad enough as they are. I hate to think what life would be like for me if there was no one left to stand up for me.
I don't think Democrats have a strong incentive to do this at all. Biden again, passes for a moderate, but he's been pretty unequivocal about transgender rights in recent years. Moreover, anytime someone like John Kerry tries to pander to people who almost certainly aren't going to vote for them anyway, it blows up in their face (see his ridiculous duck hunting trip in 2004). If you're the type of person who is voting against Democrats because you believe "reverse-racism" is a major problem or that transgender citizens are getting "special treatment", Democrats offering a watered-down, disingenuous version of what Republicans already provide will get you nothing. Why would you buy store-brand Cola when Coke is on sale for the same price??
I mean, there are Republican House members currently planning on starting a caucus to preserve the "Anglo-Saxon tradition" of the United States which is functionally no different than someone wanting to preserve the Aryan heritage of Germany. I'm willing to lose an election or two to accomplish a net positive in the long haul. The GOP already all but admits through their actions they can only win consistently by rigging the game. This isn't the time to capitulate to an incredibly unpopular agenda. Americans like "winners". The first step is in acting like one.
Case in point is the refugee cap story from Friday. It was reported they were not going to raise the cap set by the Trump Administration. They reversed course within 12 hours, because the blowback from the left was INFINITELY more vocal than the literally non-existent praise from the right.
There seems to be a unique opportunity within the grasp of the Democratic Party. Major corporations are pretty much on board for almost all of the 'inclusion' agenda of liberals. If the Democrats would switch their focus to poverty, rather than social issues, they could make a historic rise in power.. Leave the social issues to business. Let them be the fall-guys and focus on making the average person's life better. Business has now figured out that inclusion is good for their bottom-line so they're already on-board with that. Without the social hot-button issues, the GOP will have to change with the times. Just a thought I had...
The Democratic party could definitely score a lot more political points if they threw trans people like me under the bus. I'm glad they don't, because otherwise we have no one else in government to protect us.
My friends get mistreated at their jobs for their gender and the only reason they have any recourse is because of anti-discrimination laws. If you think big business supports inclusion, you couldn't be more wrong. A corporation will post a pro-BLM tweet on Twitter for PR and then go right back to discriminating against people of color. Pretending to be woke doesn't mean they're any less bigoted than anyone else.
I agree that Democrats have a strong incentive to let minorities get treated like garbage instead of standing up for us. But when people vote against good economic policy because they don't like minorities, the problem isn't that minorities are being treated too well by our government.
No, businesses don't want to protect us. The only reason your company's HR department has provisions against discrimination is because they don't want to get in trouble for breaking anti-discrimination laws, and even then discrimination still happens constantly.
There are a few places where big business actually does care about equality. Target, Starbucks, and HEB are relatively trans-friendly employers; they actually put it into policy. But if you're trans, there are a lot of places you simply can't work for, much less get treated the same as the other employees.
Fighting discrimination against minorities doesn't win you points with a majority that doesn't like them. You do it because it's right; not because you benefit.
I'm glad there's at least a few people in politics who don't want my friends bullied or fired or beaten up.
Things are bad enough as they are. I hate to think what life would be like for me if there was no one left to stand up for me.
I'm certainly not suggesting that they throw people like you under the bus. I'm merely suggesting that they change their front and center projection of 'wokeness' long enough to change something that not only needs attention, but just might alleviate some of the tensions that are affecting people like you. Combating ignorance by focusing on education and poverty would work wonders on the small-mindedness of a lot of poor white folks. I'm not really sure how to do this, mind you, but if that could somehow be achieved it would go a long ways towards fixing many of our problems. Trying to force people to think a certain way doesn't seem to be working very well IMHO.
The Democratic party's main focus is on economic issues, namely healthcare and wages. Trans folks pop up only occasionally; we are nowhere near the forefront of the Democratic party's rhetoric, nor are we their primary focus in policymaking. We are a peripheral issue, and the only way to de-emphasize a peripheral issue is to remove it entirely. They barely ever talk about us and they barely ever take action on us.
The only reason it seems like we're at the forefront is because people are accustomed to not hearing about us at all.
The Democratic party's main focus is on economic issues, namely healthcare and wages. Trans folks pop up only occasionally; we are nowhere near the forefront of the Democratic party's rhetoric, nor are we their primary focus in policymaking. We are a peripheral issue, and the only way to de-emphasize a peripheral issue is to remove it entirely. They barely ever talk about us and they barely ever take action on us.
The only reason it seems like we're at the forefront is because people are accustomed to not hearing about us at all.
The rash of bills being passed in South Dakota and Florida suggest what we've known for some time. The transgender community is public enemy #1 in the GOP's endless hit parade of "these are the people who are ruining your life and our society". If you were to ask me, I'd say there are alot of voters in this country who view even having to encounter or look at a trans person in public is an affront to their freedom. Much like the homeless, they'd much prefer if you just "went away". Of course, not coincidentally, many transgender Americans ARE homeless. There is a visceral reaction among some that dwarves even the most homophobic comments of the past.
Look at what the Biden administration has actually been busy with these days. Is it LGBTQ+ equality? No. Is it police reform? No.
What are they working on instead?
The vaccine rollout and stimulus.
What is "woke" about vaccines? What is "woke" about checks and stimulus?
The notion that the Democratic party is obsessed with social justice is false. It doesn't match the reality of what they do and say.
Biden mentioned trans people in his inauguration speech and lifted a ban on trans people serving in the military. THAT is what passes for radical wokeness these days.
There seems to be a unique opportunity within the grasp of the Democratic Party. Major corporations are pretty much on board for almost all of the 'inclusion' agenda of liberals. If the Democrats would switch their focus to poverty, rather than social issues, they could make a historic rise in power.. Leave the social issues to business. Let them be the fall-guys and focus on making the average person's life better. Business has now figured out that inclusion is good for their bottom-line so they're already on-board with that. Without the social hot-button issues, the GOP will have to change with the times. Just a thought I had...
The Democratic party could definitely score a lot more political points if they threw trans people like me under the bus. I'm glad they don't, because otherwise we have no one else in government to protect us.
My friends get mistreated at their jobs for their gender and the only reason they have any recourse is because of anti-discrimination laws. If you think big business supports inclusion, you couldn't be more wrong. A corporation will post a pro-BLM tweet on Twitter for PR and then go right back to discriminating against people of color. Pretending to be woke doesn't mean they're any less bigoted than anyone else.
I agree that Democrats have a strong incentive to let minorities get treated like garbage instead of standing up for us. But when people vote against good economic policy because they don't like minorities, the problem isn't that minorities are being treated too well by our government.
No, businesses don't want to protect us. The only reason your company's HR department has provisions against discrimination is because they don't want to get in trouble for breaking anti-discrimination laws, and even then discrimination still happens constantly.
There are a few places where big business actually does care about equality. Target, Starbucks, and HEB are relatively trans-friendly employers; they actually put it into policy. But if you're trans, there are a lot of places you simply can't work for, much less get treated the same as the other employees.
Fighting discrimination against minorities doesn't win you points with a majority that doesn't like them. You do it because it's right; not because you benefit.
I'm glad there's at least a few people in politics who don't want my friends bullied or fired or beaten up.
Things are bad enough as they are. I hate to think what life would be like for me if there was no one left to stand up for me.
I'm certainly not suggesting that they throw people like you under the bus. I'm merely suggesting that they change their front and center projection of 'wokeness' long enough to change something that not only needs attention, but just might alleviate some of the tensions that are affecting people like you. Combating ignorance by focusing on education and poverty would work wonders on the small-mindedness of a lot of poor white folks. I'm not really sure how to do this, mind you, but if that could somehow be achieved it would go a long ways towards fixing many of our problems. Trying to force people to think a certain way doesn't seem to be working very well IMHO.
Forcing people to think a certain way isn't the goal. It's to stop them from actively supporting making people second-class citizens because it makes them feel better about their own lives. It never stops at their opinion. It always leads to an attempt at a caste system. I don't care if people go to church everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. I do care if they then try use their personal religious beliefs to enshrine discrimination into law.
I don't count you among them are you consistently take a legitimate libertarian bent on issues like this. But the simple fact of the matter is that many conservatives aren't comfortable living in a society in which LGBTQ people even exist, despite it having absolutely no material effect on their lives whatsoever. I've asked for 20 years why gay marriage was going to "destroy the American family" (whatever that means) and never gotten an answer that wasn't complete nonsense.
I knew I was poking the hornets' nest but I know how the people in the religious right think. I lived in their bubble growing up. There's an opportunity to create a permanent schism in the GOP and I'm just pointing out how that can be done. I'm not taking a moral stand on this one way or the other. I really wish there were more than just the two parties, but the reality is that there isn't. Knowing which battles to fight now, and which ones to fight later is wise. I'm probably not going to change any minds here any more than I can change any opinions on my family's side. Such is life...
To address another point: yes, anti-poverty measures would be life-changing for trans people. We are really freaking poor as a group.
Last month, someone from my trans support group mentioned that their landlord was threatening to evict them if they didn't clean the place top to bottom in 24 hours. I drove over with some cleaning supplies, mopped up their kitchen until my herniated disk forced me to stop, and connected them with a Pride Center representative to help find some legal resources for the next time their landlord tried to violate their tenant rights. And the truth is, disabled people having to band together across two different organizations just to keep an old woman and her grandkids from being kicked out of their home is not that weird of a story in the United States.
We could definitely use a more just and equal economic system.
Education is the key. We used to have a class called 'Consumerism' that I had to take in 7th grade. It was basically to teach people how to live and maybe even get ahead in our society. It taught me about money, budgeting, saving and compound interest, balancing a checkbook, and even how the stock market works. I daresay there aren't any classes like that in schools anymore.
Just this year I made about a 20% profit from investing in crypto (Ethereum) within just a few months and used that money to help defray the costs of investing in an LLC that some of my buddies set up. I would venture that less than 5% of the US population has any clue what I'm talking about. Yes, money can be lost in investing, but there are opportunities for life-changing wealth also. All I did was shift some funds from my useless savings that wasn't doing anything but garnering less than 0.1% interest. I realize that at my age and education level, I have better opportunities than most people, but one class I had in middle-school more than 30 years ago actually made a difference.
I think there's a bit of framing issue here too. Yes, Democrats are generally pretty pro LGBTQ rights, and dont exactly shy away from that. However, the GOP is absolutely trying to instigate a culture war by framing and suggesting that the Democrats are 100% woke 100% of the time.
While the Democrats are pushing heavily on voting rights, economic stimulus and vaccine stuff - the GOP is screaming about Dr Seuss and Mr Potato Head.
I think there's a bit of framing issue here too. Yes, Democrats are generally pretty pro LGBTQ rights, and dont exactly shy away from that. However, the GOP is absolutely trying to instigate a culture war by framing and suggesting that the Democrats are 100% woke 100% of the time.
While the Democrats are pushing heavily on voting rights, economic stimulus and vaccine stuff - the GOP is screaming about Dr Seuss and Mr Potato Head.
There's an even more insidious psychology at work that even the fundamentalist Evangelicals don't realize. Their PoV doesn't value success in this world as a concept. Their supposed focus is on the next world. The strange thing that has developed, however, is that somehow they've become enthralled by the people within their sphere that have become successful. It's to the point where they venerate them and almost worship them. It's reached cult-like status at times. Somehow money has supplanted Christ as their savior and they view government helping folks that need it as 'promoting' wickedness. I don't know if I'm explaining this right, but it's as if somehow poverty is a punishment for wickedness. That's ludicrous on its face, however because so many Evangicals are poor blacks and poor 'white trash'. I can't wrap my head around the logic at all...
@Balrog99 I don't understand why money management isn't taught in schools. We had a few brief lessons in high school when I was a kid and that was it. Mercifully, Gen Z kids have been more careful about taking on student loan debt after what happened to Millennials who invested in their education, but finance is still deeply important and understood by very few. I wouldn't claim to be knowledgeable about personal finance myself.
My girlfriend has been researching the stock market for a while and she's actually been making a lot of money while she's in nursing school. She earned over a thousand dollars by investing in Dogecoin early on, back when it was worth around 4 cents a coin instead of over 30.
It's hardly the main reason folks are poor, considering the cost of living has been climbing for decades while wages have been stagnant, but one of the things you learn as an activist is that often people are held back simply because they don't know about the resources they can take advantage of.
@Balrog99 I don't understand why money management isn't taught in schools. We had a few brief lessons in high school when I was a kid and that was it. Mercifully, Gen Z kids have been more careful about taking on student loan debt after what happened to Millennials who invested in their education, but finance is still deeply important and understood by very few. I wouldn't claim to be knowledgeable about personal finance myself.
My girlfriend has been researching the stock market for a while and she's actually been making a lot of money while she's in nursing school. She earned over a thousand dollars by investing in Dogecoin early on, back when it was worth around 4 cents a coin instead of over 30.
It's hardly the main reason folks are poor, considering the cost of living has been climbing for decades while wages have been stagnant, but one of the things you learn as an activist is that often people are held back simply because they don't know about the resources they can take advantage of.
To make things even harder, it seems like the focus has been on making the 'quick buck' instead of on long-term investment strategies. The whole GameStop saga is a recent example of this. Yeah you can make a quick buck if you're lucky and have the time to follow developments like a hawk, but it's far more likely to bite you in the ass!
@Balrog99 I don't understand why money management isn't taught in schools. We had a few brief lessons in high school when I was a kid and that was it. Mercifully, Gen Z kids have been more careful about taking on student loan debt after what happened to Millennials who invested in their education, but finance is still deeply important and understood by very few. I wouldn't claim to be knowledgeable about personal finance myself.
My girlfriend has been researching the stock market for a while and she's actually been making a lot of money while she's in nursing school. She earned over a thousand dollars by investing in Dogecoin early on, back when it was worth around 4 cents a coin instead of over 30.
It's hardly the main reason folks are poor, considering the cost of living has been climbing for decades while wages have been stagnant, but one of the things you learn as an activist is that often people are held back simply because they don't know about the resources they can take advantage of.
To make things even harder, it seems like the focus has been on making the 'quick buck' instead of on long-term investment strategies. The whole GameStop saga is a recent example of this. Yeah you can make a quick buck if you're lucky and have the time to follow developments like a hawk, but it's far more likely to bite you in the ass!
I can personally attest to the fact that MANY people think having 1k in a savings account makes them Warren Buffet, when they in reality aren't accruing enough interest to purchase a pack of Juicy Fruit.
Unless you have 10s (more accurately 100s) of thousands of dollars in specialized accounts, you are not going to "make money" parking your funds in a bank. A savings account is only really useful for segregating funds and not making it so tempting to use them.
@Balrog99 I don't understand why money management isn't taught in schools. We had a few brief lessons in high school when I was a kid and that was it. Mercifully, Gen Z kids have been more careful about taking on student loan debt after what happened to Millennials who invested in their education, but finance is still deeply important and understood by very few. I wouldn't claim to be knowledgeable about personal finance myself.
My girlfriend has been researching the stock market for a while and she's actually been making a lot of money while she's in nursing school. She earned over a thousand dollars by investing in Dogecoin early on, back when it was worth around 4 cents a coin instead of over 30.
It's hardly the main reason folks are poor, considering the cost of living has been climbing for decades while wages have been stagnant, but one of the things you learn as an activist is that often people are held back simply because they don't know about the resources they can take advantage of.
To make things even harder, it seems like the focus has been on making the 'quick buck' instead of on long-term investment strategies. The whole GameStop saga is a recent example of this. Yeah you can make a quick buck if you're lucky and have the time to follow developments like a hawk, but it's far more likely to bite you in the ass!
I can personally attest to the fact that MANY people think having 1k in a savings account makes them Warren Buffet, when they in reality aren't accruing enough interest to purchase a pack of Juicy Fruit.
Yeah, the compound interest info I got from that Consumersim class was assuming a savings account interest rate of about 3%. In the early 80's that was the interest rate so it looked pretty yummy on paper. Now you can't even get 3% on a CD or even on government bonds. Times have changed and you have to keep up or get left behind...
@Balrog99 I don't understand why money management isn't taught in schools. We had a few brief lessons in high school when I was a kid and that was it. Mercifully, Gen Z kids have been more careful about taking on student loan debt after what happened to Millennials who invested in their education, but finance is still deeply important and understood by very few. I wouldn't claim to be knowledgeable about personal finance myself.
My girlfriend has been researching the stock market for a while and she's actually been making a lot of money while she's in nursing school. She earned over a thousand dollars by investing in Dogecoin early on, back when it was worth around 4 cents a coin instead of over 30.
It's hardly the main reason folks are poor, considering the cost of living has been climbing for decades while wages have been stagnant, but one of the things you learn as an activist is that often people are held back simply because they don't know about the resources they can take advantage of.
To make things even harder, it seems like the focus has been on making the 'quick buck' instead of on long-term investment strategies. The whole GameStop saga is a recent example of this. Yeah you can make a quick buck if you're lucky and have the time to follow developments like a hawk, but it's far more likely to bite you in the ass!
I can personally attest to the fact that MANY people think having 1k in a savings account makes them Warren Buffet, when they in reality aren't accruing enough interest to purchase a pack of Juicy Fruit.
Yeah, the compound interest info I got from that Consumersim class was assuming a savings account interest rate of about 3%. In the early 80's that was the interest rate so it looked pretty yummy on paper. Now you can't even get 3% on a CD or even on government bonds. Times have changed and you have to keep up or get left behind...
I'm not gonna get too into the weeds in this unless I can somehow change my screen name here (which I should probably do anyway), but suffice to say, lack of INVESTMENT knowledge isn't in my top five concerns about people and how they handle their money. There are issues far more basic than that at work in most cases. One semester between 9th and 12th grade on how basic banking works should be a requirement in school. Unless you actually plan on being a chemist or physicist (or a profession that requires them), it would be FAR more valuable than either of those classes. Basic algebra can be applied to daily life. Calculus cannot.
I understand Wal-Mart charging $3.00 to cash a paycheck isn't ideal, but it is far preferable to the death spiral you can enter if you are spending nearly every cent of your paycheck every 2 weeks and even ONE slip-up happens with your account. If someone lives paycheck to paycheck in the sense that literally every CENT is gone by the next payday, a checking account is a disaster waiting to happen. Forgot your 3-month Hulu trial is up and the payment date comes when you have $3.00 left?? Now you have -$50.00. Which may be 1/10th of your next check. Maybe you can get someone to Venmo you the funds. Or maybe you then go to a payday lender, who gives you $500.00, which is due with 25% interest in 3 weeks. And they have your account info because you had to give it to them. No way out unless you find a better job, which is going to be quite difficult to do because you have no money.
I think there's a bit of framing issue here too. Yes, Democrats are generally pretty pro LGBTQ rights, and dont exactly shy away from that. However, the GOP is absolutely trying to instigate a culture war by framing and suggesting that the Democrats are 100% woke 100% of the time.
While the Democrats are pushing heavily on voting rights, economic stimulus and vaccine stuff - the GOP is screaming about Dr Seuss and Mr Potato Head.
The problem they have is thay they have no idea what to do with Biden, even over a year later. They tried with the dirt on his son, but most people find that repulsive and he isn't in any way involved in the Administration. They tried the dementia angle but that only plays for so long before not registering because it isn't manifesting in any way beyond fumbling a few words. So they're left with a mild-mannered, empathetic old white-man who is focusing solely on getting people's lives back to normal. It's not a wonder they have turned to stuff you mentioned. They don't have anything else to offer. Nothing.
I think there's a bit of framing issue here too. Yes, Democrats are generally pretty pro LGBTQ rights, and dont exactly shy away from that. However, the GOP is absolutely trying to instigate a culture war by framing and suggesting that the Democrats are 100% woke 100% of the time.
While the Democrats are pushing heavily on voting rights, economic stimulus and vaccine stuff - the GOP is screaming about Dr Seuss and Mr Potato Head.
Yep, the idea that Democrats have been leaning into cultural issues on the national level just isnt true. It's been pretty much all economics and COVID. The COVID relief bill was just that. This new infrastructure proposal is also that. Aside from some very small, and sensible measures like the military trans ban, there's been nothing on the cultural front. Even on the issue of policing, the national party has been hesitant to engage in that cultural fight. There's certainly no legislation or major reform of policing being pushed out of the federal government, is there?
The idea that Democrats are doing any kind of "woke" indulgence is just a flat out lie, largely ginned up by right-wing media. All the current culture war stuff that dominates the media pretty much all has its genesis there. And there's really nothing that can be done to persuade people who refuse to put down the crackpipe of conservative disinformation.
And despite what some are saying here, the strategy out of the White House and Congress has been working. The bill they just barely squeezed through Congress is immensely popular. This next major bill, the infrastructure bill, is also starting out as quite popular. Biden's approval ratings are sky high relative to other presidents of the last 30 years.
The role of "cultural" issues is on a more fundamental party-building level. The current Democratic party is the civil rights coalition, built around a series of bargains. We'll support your rights, and you'll support ours. And as long as the people who want to take those rights away have a substantial power base, that coalition will hold strong.
Wedging groups out of that, saying it's OK to deny "those" people the rights they're asking for ... that's not a recipe for helping the party. It's a recipe for breaking the party. And for the people who care, it's a moral issue. I know I wouldn't stand for it - I'd probably start calling myself a socialist.
Comments
I am certainly not someone who is only gonna care about it when it's an African-American. That video from Arizona a few years ago where the cop had the guy crawling on the floor before uploading an assault rifle into him was ghastly. The excuse from people defending the cop was the EXACT same. The guy's arm twitched, so clearly the cop had to shoot, despite the guy lying prone and terrified on the ground.
The problem is that cops are trained to accept NO risk, which, frankly, is not what their job is. The risk is WHY you have the gun and taser. With that comes some modicum of responsibility for people who, when you are apprehending them, have been convicted of nothing. They are still among the people you swore to protect. If the #1 priority of a cop is to "come home at the end of the day" then this isn't the profession for you.
Furthermore, it isn't a uniquely dangerous job, despite the fact that they are constantly interacting with criminals. The deaths on the job per 100,000 doesn't even place it in the top 15 most dangerous jobs, and most of those deaths have to do with traffic accidents. If people are gonna argue police shootings aren't a problem based on the numbers, you also have to acknowledge policing is a less dangerous job than that of a bartender or roofer. Neither of whom have the right to murder with impunity. Shit, soldiers in combat have far more strict rules of engagement than American police.
I don't disagree with you necessarily, but I'd argue that it isn't as simple as you seem to think it is. The police statistics are skewed by the fact that not all of them work in impoverished inner-city environments. What are the statistics when you only look at high crime neighborhoods?
I don't have an "answer" per se. All I know is other countries don't kill criminal suspects at this rate, and they don't have mass shootings literally every 3 days. These are American problems. No other countries similar to ours have them. Alot of people who live here think we're "exceptional". Well, we are, but in a way that causes those to the North and across the pond to recoil in horror, not admiration. We have too many fucking guns.
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/summer16/highlight2.html
the gl0ves were on the 21 year old not the child.
Then child was there because if they were caught with the gun, the juvenile would get a lesser sentence than the adult. The child is a victim in very circumstance of this scenario.
It also doesn't matter who was shot at. It wasn't the police, therefore the police lives were not in jeopardy. The police does not have the right to be a person's jury, judge and executioner.
The "danger" to the cops in almost every one of these cases is always hypothetical. It COULD happen, so they treat it as if it's 100% certainty that it WILL happen. Not all that different from the Cheney Doctrine in the Bush years, which basically boiled dow to "if there is a 1% chance a nation could develop WMD, we need to bomb their country back to the stone-age." And to tie-in even more with that era, the surplus military equipment from the war on terror was given to every backwater police force in the country. And, lo and behold, they started acting like occupying armies. The same stuff that happened over the summer is going on in Brooklyn Center tonight. Cops taking pictures and making records of journalists. One claims a cop punched him in the face. Police deliberately charging a protest line engaging in no violence whatsoever. I wish I'd kept an archive of the unprovoked attacks by police last summer that was on film.
My friends get mistreated at their jobs for their gender and the only reason they have any recourse is because of anti-discrimination laws. If you think big business supports inclusion, you couldn't be more wrong. A corporation will post a pro-BLM tweet on Twitter for PR and then go right back to discriminating against people of color. Pretending to be woke doesn't mean they're any less bigoted than anyone else.
I agree that Democrats have a strong incentive to let minorities get treated like garbage instead of standing up for us. But when people vote against good economic policy because they don't like minorities, the problem isn't that minorities are being treated too well by our government.
No, businesses don't want to protect us. The only reason your company's HR department has provisions against discrimination is because they don't want to get in trouble for breaking anti-discrimination laws, and even then discrimination still happens constantly.
There are a few places where big business actually does care about equality. Target, Starbucks, and HEB are relatively trans-friendly employers; they actually put it into policy. But if you're trans, there are a lot of places you simply can't work for, much less get treated the same as the other employees.
Fighting discrimination against minorities doesn't win you points with a majority that doesn't like them. You do it because it's right; not because you benefit.
I'm glad there's at least a few people in politics who don't want my friends bullied or fired or beaten up.
Things are bad enough as they are. I hate to think what life would be like for me if there was no one left to stand up for me.
All of this is true. However, I agree with @Balrog99's main point, that the possible solutions to poverty aren't being emphasized enough, generally speaking. Proof of this is that there is no consensus among economists on a universal solution to structural poverty. It's not even clear what the causes of the problem are. Personally, as a left-winger, I believe that the root of the problem consists in how a small elite appropriates surplus value generated by the masses. No mainstream economists would agree with that assessment though, they even question the existence of surplus value at the conceptual level. So this is indeed a discussion that we as a society must have. That does not mean that discussions about gender shouldn't be had, since they should.
I think a lot more could be done, but I also think it is not 100% fair to demand that all these things will be done under Biden. The Senate majority is razor thing, it is unlikely that any comprehensive program could pass under those circumstances. I will be pleasantly surprised if they manage to revert some of the tax cuts for the rich that were passed under Trump.
I agree, that's why I phrased it in a general way. I wasn't referring to the USA in particular, since structural poverty is a worldwide phenomenon.
I don't think Democrats have a strong incentive to do this at all. Biden again, passes for a moderate, but he's been pretty unequivocal about transgender rights in recent years. Moreover, anytime someone like John Kerry tries to pander to people who almost certainly aren't going to vote for them anyway, it blows up in their face (see his ridiculous duck hunting trip in 2004). If you're the type of person who is voting against Democrats because you believe "reverse-racism" is a major problem or that transgender citizens are getting "special treatment", Democrats offering a watered-down, disingenuous version of what Republicans already provide will get you nothing. Why would you buy store-brand Cola when Coke is on sale for the same price??
I mean, there are Republican House members currently planning on starting a caucus to preserve the "Anglo-Saxon tradition" of the United States which is functionally no different than someone wanting to preserve the Aryan heritage of Germany. I'm willing to lose an election or two to accomplish a net positive in the long haul. The GOP already all but admits through their actions they can only win consistently by rigging the game. This isn't the time to capitulate to an incredibly unpopular agenda. Americans like "winners". The first step is in acting like one.
Case in point is the refugee cap story from Friday. It was reported they were not going to raise the cap set by the Trump Administration. They reversed course within 12 hours, because the blowback from the left was INFINITELY more vocal than the literally non-existent praise from the right.
I'm certainly not suggesting that they throw people like you under the bus. I'm merely suggesting that they change their front and center projection of 'wokeness' long enough to change something that not only needs attention, but just might alleviate some of the tensions that are affecting people like you. Combating ignorance by focusing on education and poverty would work wonders on the small-mindedness of a lot of poor white folks. I'm not really sure how to do this, mind you, but if that could somehow be achieved it would go a long ways towards fixing many of our problems. Trying to force people to think a certain way doesn't seem to be working very well IMHO.
The only reason it seems like we're at the forefront is because people are accustomed to not hearing about us at all.
The rash of bills being passed in South Dakota and Florida suggest what we've known for some time. The transgender community is public enemy #1 in the GOP's endless hit parade of "these are the people who are ruining your life and our society". If you were to ask me, I'd say there are alot of voters in this country who view even having to encounter or look at a trans person in public is an affront to their freedom. Much like the homeless, they'd much prefer if you just "went away". Of course, not coincidentally, many transgender Americans ARE homeless. There is a visceral reaction among some that dwarves even the most homophobic comments of the past.
What are they working on instead?
The vaccine rollout and stimulus.
What is "woke" about vaccines? What is "woke" about checks and stimulus?
The notion that the Democratic party is obsessed with social justice is false. It doesn't match the reality of what they do and say.
Biden mentioned trans people in his inauguration speech and lifted a ban on trans people serving in the military. THAT is what passes for radical wokeness these days.
Forcing people to think a certain way isn't the goal. It's to stop them from actively supporting making people second-class citizens because it makes them feel better about their own lives. It never stops at their opinion. It always leads to an attempt at a caste system. I don't care if people go to church everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. I do care if they then try use their personal religious beliefs to enshrine discrimination into law.
I don't count you among them are you consistently take a legitimate libertarian bent on issues like this. But the simple fact of the matter is that many conservatives aren't comfortable living in a society in which LGBTQ people even exist, despite it having absolutely no material effect on their lives whatsoever. I've asked for 20 years why gay marriage was going to "destroy the American family" (whatever that means) and never gotten an answer that wasn't complete nonsense.
Last month, someone from my trans support group mentioned that their landlord was threatening to evict them if they didn't clean the place top to bottom in 24 hours. I drove over with some cleaning supplies, mopped up their kitchen until my herniated disk forced me to stop, and connected them with a Pride Center representative to help find some legal resources for the next time their landlord tried to violate their tenant rights. And the truth is, disabled people having to band together across two different organizations just to keep an old woman and her grandkids from being kicked out of their home is not that weird of a story in the United States.
We could definitely use a more just and equal economic system.
Just this year I made about a 20% profit from investing in crypto (Ethereum) within just a few months and used that money to help defray the costs of investing in an LLC that some of my buddies set up. I would venture that less than 5% of the US population has any clue what I'm talking about. Yes, money can be lost in investing, but there are opportunities for life-changing wealth also. All I did was shift some funds from my useless savings that wasn't doing anything but garnering less than 0.1% interest. I realize that at my age and education level, I have better opportunities than most people, but one class I had in middle-school more than 30 years ago actually made a difference.
While the Democrats are pushing heavily on voting rights, economic stimulus and vaccine stuff - the GOP is screaming about Dr Seuss and Mr Potato Head.
There's an even more insidious psychology at work that even the fundamentalist Evangelicals don't realize. Their PoV doesn't value success in this world as a concept. Their supposed focus is on the next world. The strange thing that has developed, however, is that somehow they've become enthralled by the people within their sphere that have become successful. It's to the point where they venerate them and almost worship them. It's reached cult-like status at times. Somehow money has supplanted Christ as their savior and they view government helping folks that need it as 'promoting' wickedness. I don't know if I'm explaining this right, but it's as if somehow poverty is a punishment for wickedness. That's ludicrous on its face, however because so many Evangicals are poor blacks and poor 'white trash'. I can't wrap my head around the logic at all...
My girlfriend has been researching the stock market for a while and she's actually been making a lot of money while she's in nursing school. She earned over a thousand dollars by investing in Dogecoin early on, back when it was worth around 4 cents a coin instead of over 30.
It's hardly the main reason folks are poor, considering the cost of living has been climbing for decades while wages have been stagnant, but one of the things you learn as an activist is that often people are held back simply because they don't know about the resources they can take advantage of.
To make things even harder, it seems like the focus has been on making the 'quick buck' instead of on long-term investment strategies. The whole GameStop saga is a recent example of this. Yeah you can make a quick buck if you're lucky and have the time to follow developments like a hawk, but it's far more likely to bite you in the ass!
I can personally attest to the fact that MANY people think having 1k in a savings account makes them Warren Buffet, when they in reality aren't accruing enough interest to purchase a pack of Juicy Fruit.
Unless you have 10s (more accurately 100s) of thousands of dollars in specialized accounts, you are not going to "make money" parking your funds in a bank. A savings account is only really useful for segregating funds and not making it so tempting to use them.
Yeah, the compound interest info I got from that Consumersim class was assuming a savings account interest rate of about 3%. In the early 80's that was the interest rate so it looked pretty yummy on paper. Now you can't even get 3% on a CD or even on government bonds. Times have changed and you have to keep up or get left behind...
I'm not gonna get too into the weeds in this unless I can somehow change my screen name here (which I should probably do anyway), but suffice to say, lack of INVESTMENT knowledge isn't in my top five concerns about people and how they handle their money. There are issues far more basic than that at work in most cases. One semester between 9th and 12th grade on how basic banking works should be a requirement in school. Unless you actually plan on being a chemist or physicist (or a profession that requires them), it would be FAR more valuable than either of those classes. Basic algebra can be applied to daily life. Calculus cannot.
I understand Wal-Mart charging $3.00 to cash a paycheck isn't ideal, but it is far preferable to the death spiral you can enter if you are spending nearly every cent of your paycheck every 2 weeks and even ONE slip-up happens with your account. If someone lives paycheck to paycheck in the sense that literally every CENT is gone by the next payday, a checking account is a disaster waiting to happen. Forgot your 3-month Hulu trial is up and the payment date comes when you have $3.00 left?? Now you have -$50.00. Which may be 1/10th of your next check. Maybe you can get someone to Venmo you the funds. Or maybe you then go to a payday lender, who gives you $500.00, which is due with 25% interest in 3 weeks. And they have your account info because you had to give it to them. No way out unless you find a better job, which is going to be quite difficult to do because you have no money.
The problem they have is thay they have no idea what to do with Biden, even over a year later. They tried with the dirt on his son, but most people find that repulsive and he isn't in any way involved in the Administration. They tried the dementia angle but that only plays for so long before not registering because it isn't manifesting in any way beyond fumbling a few words. So they're left with a mild-mannered, empathetic old white-man who is focusing solely on getting people's lives back to normal. It's not a wonder they have turned to stuff you mentioned. They don't have anything else to offer. Nothing.
Yep, the idea that Democrats have been leaning into cultural issues on the national level just isnt true. It's been pretty much all economics and COVID. The COVID relief bill was just that. This new infrastructure proposal is also that. Aside from some very small, and sensible measures like the military trans ban, there's been nothing on the cultural front. Even on the issue of policing, the national party has been hesitant to engage in that cultural fight. There's certainly no legislation or major reform of policing being pushed out of the federal government, is there?
The idea that Democrats are doing any kind of "woke" indulgence is just a flat out lie, largely ginned up by right-wing media. All the current culture war stuff that dominates the media pretty much all has its genesis there. And there's really nothing that can be done to persuade people who refuse to put down the crackpipe of conservative disinformation.
And despite what some are saying here, the strategy out of the White House and Congress has been working. The bill they just barely squeezed through Congress is immensely popular. This next major bill, the infrastructure bill, is also starting out as quite popular. Biden's approval ratings are sky high relative to other presidents of the last 30 years.
Wedging groups out of that, saying it's OK to deny "those" people the rights they're asking for ... that's not a recipe for helping the party. It's a recipe for breaking the party. And for the people who care, it's a moral issue. I know I wouldn't stand for it - I'd probably start calling myself a socialist.