|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 10 2017 05:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 05:42 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 05:40 Artisreal wrote:
Not knowing the background of so many here I find it tragic how not funny it is that some - possibly - white members tell gh that his way is not the right way of approaching a discrimination free world.
Ooh the irony is rich time and again. His way isn't. It's a two party system. If you won't sell your vote to either party you no longer have a vote. You sell it as dearly as you can but those who are too ideologically pure to sell it at all might as well not have the vote in the first place. You want to address the whole if the Democratic candidate conspired with Iran thing that came up where I mentioned this argument? If you don't have standards you've already given up your vote. That's not how it works. If one candidate was Hitler and the other Stalin I'd still vote for one of the two because ultimately it is still possible to have a preference between the two. However it would never get to that point because it's a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. You'll say that my logic means that a party only need run a candidate slightly less awful than the other side to win and that's true. But if both parties are trying to run a candidate slightly less awful than the other side's candidate then that is a self improving cycle.
Yup, that's how you get Trump v Clinton... I mean wut?
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 10 2017 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 05:51 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 05:42 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 05:40 Artisreal wrote:
Not knowing the background of so many here I find it tragic how not funny it is that some - possibly - white members tell gh that his way is not the right way of approaching a discrimination free world.
Ooh the irony is rich time and again. His way isn't. It's a two party system. If you won't sell your vote to either party you no longer have a vote. You sell it as dearly as you can but those who are too ideologically pure to sell it at all might as well not have the vote in the first place. You want to address the whole if the Democratic candidate conspired with Iran thing that came up where I mentioned this argument? If you don't have standards you've already given up your vote. That's not how it works. If one candidate was Hitler and the other Stalin I'd still vote for one of the two because ultimately it is still possible to have a preference between the two. However it would never get to that point because it's a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. You'll say that my logic means that a party only need run a candidate slightly less awful than the other side to win and that's true. But if both parties are trying to run a candidate slightly less awful than the other side's candidate then that is a self improving cycle. Yup, that's how you get Trump v Clinton... I mean wut?
Both of whom are considerably better than a lot of politicians the US has had in the past. You know how little I think of Trump. But he's not as racist as Wilson, for example. Even with Trump's petty ethnonationalism and insane narcissism, things are still better than they have been.
Look at the overall trend, don't insist that every datapoint perfectly match the line.
|
On August 10 2017 05:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 05:42 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 05:40 Artisreal wrote:
Not knowing the background of so many here I find it tragic how not funny it is that some - possibly - white members tell gh that his way is not the right way of approaching a discrimination free world.
Ooh the irony is rich time and again. His way isn't. It's a two party system. If you won't sell your vote to either party you no longer have a vote. You sell it as dearly as you can but those who are too ideologically pure to sell it at all might as well not have the vote in the first place. You want to address the whole if the Democratic candidate conspired with Iran thing that came up where I mentioned this argument? If you don't have standards you've already given up your vote. That's not how it works. If one candidate was Hitler and the other Stalin I'd still vote for one of the two because ultimately it is still possible to have a preference between the two. However it would never get to that point because it's a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. You'll say that my logic means that a party only need run a candidate slightly less awful than the other side to win and that's true. But if both parties are trying to run a candidate slightly less awful than the other side's candidate then that is a self improving cycle. It's simple game theory. It sucks but that doesn't mean it's not true. If one candidate vows to kill 10,000,000 people and another vows to kill 9,000,000 then every abstention is a vote of disinterest in whether those 1,000,000 people live or die. Every vote for killing 9,000,000 people will be analysed by politicians and the "kill 10,000,000 people party" will conclude that a significant number of likely voters think that the number of people killed should be lower, and next year they'll run as the "kill 8,000,000 people party". After a few cycles you'll have a "kill nobody, and also fund schools party".
The response to the Hitler vs Stalin vote is: Riot and resist because that is literally what people who were under them said should have happened. You need a better hypothetical.
|
On August 10 2017 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 05:51 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 05:42 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 05:40 Artisreal wrote:
Not knowing the background of so many here I find it tragic how not funny it is that some - possibly - white members tell gh that his way is not the right way of approaching a discrimination free world.
Ooh the irony is rich time and again. His way isn't. It's a two party system. If you won't sell your vote to either party you no longer have a vote. You sell it as dearly as you can but those who are too ideologically pure to sell it at all might as well not have the vote in the first place. You want to address the whole if the Democratic candidate conspired with Iran thing that came up where I mentioned this argument? If you don't have standards you've already given up your vote. That's not how it works. If one candidate was Hitler and the other Stalin I'd still vote for one of the two because ultimately it is still possible to have a preference between the two. However it would never get to that point because it's a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. You'll say that my logic means that a party only need run a candidate slightly less awful than the other side to win and that's true. But if both parties are trying to run a candidate slightly less awful than the other side's candidate then that is a self improving cycle. Yup, that's how you get Trump v Clinton... I mean wut?
I don't think you understand what Kwark is saying at all.
We got Trump vs Clinton because people are not rationally voting for the lesser evil.
People are not rational, thats why we got this shit.
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 10 2017 05:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 05:51 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 05:42 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 05:40 Artisreal wrote:
Not knowing the background of so many here I find it tragic how not funny it is that some - possibly - white members tell gh that his way is not the right way of approaching a discrimination free world.
Ooh the irony is rich time and again. His way isn't. It's a two party system. If you won't sell your vote to either party you no longer have a vote. You sell it as dearly as you can but those who are too ideologically pure to sell it at all might as well not have the vote in the first place. You want to address the whole if the Democratic candidate conspired with Iran thing that came up where I mentioned this argument? If you don't have standards you've already given up your vote. That's not how it works. If one candidate was Hitler and the other Stalin I'd still vote for one of the two because ultimately it is still possible to have a preference between the two. However it would never get to that point because it's a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. You'll say that my logic means that a party only need run a candidate slightly less awful than the other side to win and that's true. But if both parties are trying to run a candidate slightly less awful than the other side's candidate then that is a self improving cycle. It's simple game theory. It sucks but that doesn't mean it's not true. If one candidate vows to kill 10,000,000 people and another vows to kill 9,000,000 then every abstention is a vote of disinterest in whether those 1,000,000 people live or die. Every vote for killing 9,000,000 people will be analysed by politicians and the "kill 10,000,000 people party" will conclude that a significant number of likely voters think that the number of people killed should be lower, and next year they'll run as the "kill 8,000,000 people party". After a few cycles you'll have a "kill nobody, and also fund schools party". The response to the Hitler vs Stalin vote is: Riot and resist because that is literally what people who were under them said should have happened. You need a better hypothetical.
You can do both. Hell, that makes voting even more important. Vote for the one you can more easily overthrow. If you're planning insurrection you have a definite interest in the outcome of the election.
|
On August 10 2017 05:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 05:51 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 05:42 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 05:40 Artisreal wrote:
Not knowing the background of so many here I find it tragic how not funny it is that some - possibly - white members tell gh that his way is not the right way of approaching a discrimination free world.
Ooh the irony is rich time and again. His way isn't. It's a two party system. If you won't sell your vote to either party you no longer have a vote. You sell it as dearly as you can but those who are too ideologically pure to sell it at all might as well not have the vote in the first place. You want to address the whole if the Democratic candidate conspired with Iran thing that came up where I mentioned this argument? If you don't have standards you've already given up your vote. That's not how it works. If one candidate was Hitler and the other Stalin I'd still vote for one of the two because ultimately it is still possible to have a preference between the two. However it would never get to that point because it's a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. You'll say that my logic means that a party only need run a candidate slightly less awful than the other side to win and that's true. But if both parties are trying to run a candidate slightly less awful than the other side's candidate then that is a self improving cycle. Yup, that's how you get Trump v Clinton... I mean wut? I don't think you understand what Kwark is saying at all. We got Trump vs Clinton because people are not rationally voting for the lesser evil. People are not rational, thats why we got this shit.
Also, the US has this problem that one of the parties is just plain insane and evil. And yet a bunch of people still inexplicably vote for them. The democrats could put up a shaved donkey and it would be the lesser evil.
|
On August 10 2017 05:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 05:51 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 05:42 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 05:40 Artisreal wrote:
Not knowing the background of so many here I find it tragic how not funny it is that some - possibly - white members tell gh that his way is not the right way of approaching a discrimination free world.
Ooh the irony is rich time and again. His way isn't. It's a two party system. If you won't sell your vote to either party you no longer have a vote. You sell it as dearly as you can but those who are too ideologically pure to sell it at all might as well not have the vote in the first place. You want to address the whole if the Democratic candidate conspired with Iran thing that came up where I mentioned this argument? If you don't have standards you've already given up your vote. That's not how it works. If one candidate was Hitler and the other Stalin I'd still vote for one of the two because ultimately it is still possible to have a preference between the two. However it would never get to that point because it's a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. You'll say that my logic means that a party only need run a candidate slightly less awful than the other side to win and that's true. But if both parties are trying to run a candidate slightly less awful than the other side's candidate then that is a self improving cycle. Yup, that's how you get Trump v Clinton... I mean wut? I don't think you understand what Kwark is saying at all. We got Trump vs Clinton because people are not rationally voting for the lesser evil. People are not rational, thats why we got this shit.
If that's what he was saying than we'd agree on why it's not working and not a sound strategy moving forward.
But I mean what? Wilson? Really? Xi Jinping is better than Mao Zedong too?
|
On August 10 2017 06:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 05:59 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2017 05:51 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 05:42 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 05:40 Artisreal wrote:
Not knowing the background of so many here I find it tragic how not funny it is that some - possibly - white members tell gh that his way is not the right way of approaching a discrimination free world.
Ooh the irony is rich time and again. His way isn't. It's a two party system. If you won't sell your vote to either party you no longer have a vote. You sell it as dearly as you can but those who are too ideologically pure to sell it at all might as well not have the vote in the first place. You want to address the whole if the Democratic candidate conspired with Iran thing that came up where I mentioned this argument? If you don't have standards you've already given up your vote. That's not how it works. If one candidate was Hitler and the other Stalin I'd still vote for one of the two because ultimately it is still possible to have a preference between the two. However it would never get to that point because it's a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. You'll say that my logic means that a party only need run a candidate slightly less awful than the other side to win and that's true. But if both parties are trying to run a candidate slightly less awful than the other side's candidate then that is a self improving cycle. It's simple game theory. It sucks but that doesn't mean it's not true. If one candidate vows to kill 10,000,000 people and another vows to kill 9,000,000 then every abstention is a vote of disinterest in whether those 1,000,000 people live or die. Every vote for killing 9,000,000 people will be analysed by politicians and the "kill 10,000,000 people party" will conclude that a significant number of likely voters think that the number of people killed should be lower, and next year they'll run as the "kill 8,000,000 people party". After a few cycles you'll have a "kill nobody, and also fund schools party". The response to the Hitler vs Stalin vote is: Riot and resist because that is literally what people who were under them said should have happened. You need a better hypothetical. You can do both. Hell, that makes voting even more important. Vote for the one you can more easily overthrow. If you're planning insurrection you have a definite interest in the outcome of the election.
When you are talking about two clear authoritarian dictators, you do come into the debate that participation has some level of implied approval. This example is better if you have some milk toast opposition to Hitler that has zero chance of winning and is also repugnant. But for your example, this hypothetical is sufficient.
|
United States41980 Posts
Next you'll be disproving global warming with the concept of winter.
Things are getting better. They're not getting better at a constant rate, nor without interruptions and setbacks, but they are getting better. You're not looking at the data broadly, you're looking at a single datapoint and insisting that we project it.
|
On August 10 2017 06:05 KwarK wrote:
Next you'll be disproving global warming with the concept of winter.
EDIT: Things are getting better. They're not getting better at a constant rate, nor without interruptions and setbacks, but they are getting better. You're not looking at the data broadly, you're looking at a single datapoint and insisting that we project it.
Is that supposed to be a response to something?
EDIT: You're attributing "things getting better" to having no lines a party can cross and lose one's support so long as the other party is worse that are actually due to people refusing to accept either parties solutions until they get a better one or get replaced altogether. I was illustrating that.
|
On August 10 2017 05:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 05:42 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 05:40 Artisreal wrote:
Not knowing the background of so many here I find it tragic how not funny it is that some - possibly - white members tell gh that his way is not the right way of approaching a discrimination free world.
Ooh the irony is rich time and again. His way isn't. It's a two party system. If you won't sell your vote to either party you no longer have a vote. You sell it as dearly as you can but those who are too ideologically pure to sell it at all might as well not have the vote in the first place. You want to address the whole if the Democratic candidate conspired with Iran thing that came up where I mentioned this argument? If you don't have standards you've already given up your vote. That's not how it works. If one candidate was Hitler and the other Stalin I'd still vote for one of the two because ultimately it is still possible to have a preference between the two. However it would never get to that point because it's a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. You'll say that my logic means that a party only need run a candidate slightly less awful than the other side to win and that's true. But if both parties are trying to run a candidate slightly less awful than the other side's candidate then that is a self improving cycle. It's simple game theory. It sucks but that doesn't mean it's not true. If one candidate vows to kill 10,000,000 people and another vows to kill 9,000,000 then every abstention is a vote of disinterest in whether those 1,000,000 people live or die. Every vote for killing 9,000,000 people will be analysed by politicians and the "kill 10,000,000 people party" will conclude that a significant number of likely voters think that the number of people killed should be lower, and next year they'll run as the "kill 8,000,000 people party". After a few cycles you'll have a "kill nobody, and also fund schools party".
But doesn't that imply that both parties intend to move on the same direction on a subject? Because that's not really what we have going on. It's more like party A wanting to deport 10m as opposed to party B wanting the ACA to stay so 9m more can get insurance.
|
On August 10 2017 06:05 KwarK wrote:
Next you'll be disproving global warming with the concept of winter.
Things are getting better. They're not getting better at a constant rate, nor without interruptions and setbacks, but they are getting better. You're not looking at the data broadly, you're looking at a single datapoint and insisting that we project it.
Socially, yes. We no longer have lynchings, legalized wife beatings or marital rape, or the extreme intolerance that infested the 20th century, but things are not getting politically. As an example to show just how persistent political decay can be, Italy has certainly gotten better in terms of social values, but it's political problems have been going downhill since the 90s and no one wants to constantly play the game of lesser evil when things are getting worse and worse.
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 10 2017 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:05 KwarK wrote:
Next you'll be disproving global warming with the concept of winter. Is that supposed to be a response to something?
Yes.
I'll try to explain it more clearly.
Imagine I were telling you the climate was getting hotter. "Nonsense!" you cry, "these last three months since October have been getting steadily colder!" My claim would relate to a multidecade trend of warmer weather than comparable periods in previous years, your refutation to one specific season being colder than another.
Trump vs Clinton is winter. The fact that even in the dead of winter, with Republicans controlling all three branches of government, the gays are still getting married is global warming. Things have been getting better steadily. The process of voting for the lesser of two evils works.
|
On August 10 2017 06:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 06:05 KwarK wrote:
Next you'll be disproving global warming with the concept of winter. Is that supposed to be a response to something? Yes. I'll try to explain it more clearly. Imagine I were telling you the climate was getting hotter. "Nonsense!" you cry, "these last three months since October have been getting steadily colder!" My claim would relate to a multidecade trend of warmer weather than comparable periods in previous years, your refutation to one specific season being colder than another. Trump vs Clinton is winter. The fact that even in the dead of winter, with Republicans controlling all three branches of government, the gays are still getting married is global warming. Things have been getting better steadily. The process of voting for the lesser of two evils works.
Yeah, no.
You're attributing "things getting better" to having no lines a party can cross and lose one's support so long as the other party is worse that are actually due to people refusing to accept either (or multiple) parties solutions until they get a better one or get replaced altogether.
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 10 2017 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:14 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 06:05 KwarK wrote:
Next you'll be disproving global warming with the concept of winter. Is that supposed to be a response to something? Yes. I'll try to explain it more clearly. Imagine I were telling you the climate was getting hotter. "Nonsense!" you cry, "these last three months since October have been getting steadily colder!" My claim would relate to a multidecade trend of warmer weather than comparable periods in previous years, your refutation to one specific season being colder than another. Trump vs Clinton is winter. The fact that even in the dead of winter, with Republicans controlling all three branches of government, the gays are still getting married is global warming. Things have been getting better steadily. The process of voting for the lesser of two evils works. Yeah, no. You're attributing "things getting better" to having no lines a party can cross and lose one's support so long as the other party is worse that are actually due to people refusing to accept either parties solutions until they get a better one or get replaced altogether.
You're very fortunate that previous generations of African Americans were willing to sell their votes to candidates worse than the ones you're too proud to vote for to win you the rights you take for granted today. Perhaps they didn't feel like they had the luxury of waiting for their perfect candidate.
|
|
|
On August 10 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 06:14 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 06:05 KwarK wrote:
Next you'll be disproving global warming with the concept of winter. Is that supposed to be a response to something? Yes. I'll try to explain it more clearly. Imagine I were telling you the climate was getting hotter. "Nonsense!" you cry, "these last three months since October have been getting steadily colder!" My claim would relate to a multidecade trend of warmer weather than comparable periods in previous years, your refutation to one specific season being colder than another. Trump vs Clinton is winter. The fact that even in the dead of winter, with Republicans controlling all three branches of government, the gays are still getting married is global warming. Things have been getting better steadily. The process of voting for the lesser of two evils works. Yeah, no. You're attributing "things getting better" to having no lines a party can cross and lose one's support so long as the other party is worse that are actually due to people refusing to accept either parties solutions until they get a better one or get replaced altogether. You're very fortunate that previous generations of African Americans were willing to sell their votes to candidates worse than the ones you're too proud to vote for to win you the rights you take for granted today. Perhaps they didn't feel like they had the luxury of waiting for their perfect candidate.
Yeah, no.
I'm lucky there were ones willing to put life and limb on the line in the fields, on the underground railroad, in the streets, cafes, newspapers, television and everywhere else so they even had the chance to participate. Without the people refusing to wait for the system to change at a pace that made the comfortable stay comfortable you wouldn't even be able to try to tell me to appreciate the people who voted for the best they had, once again falling for the big American lie.
No one's talking about a perfect candidate, we're talking about drawing some lines of what we won't accept. You've made it clear slaughtering millions on a whim isn't a line for you.
|
On August 10 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 06:14 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 06:05 KwarK wrote:
Next you'll be disproving global warming with the concept of winter. Is that supposed to be a response to something? Yes. I'll try to explain it more clearly. Imagine I were telling you the climate was getting hotter. "Nonsense!" you cry, "these last three months since October have been getting steadily colder!" My claim would relate to a multidecade trend of warmer weather than comparable periods in previous years, your refutation to one specific season being colder than another. Trump vs Clinton is winter. The fact that even in the dead of winter, with Republicans controlling all three branches of government, the gays are still getting married is global warming. Things have been getting better steadily. The process of voting for the lesser of two evils works. Yeah, no. You're attributing "things getting better" to having no lines a party can cross and lose one's support so long as the other party is worse that are actually due to people refusing to accept either parties solutions until they get a better one or get replaced altogether. You're very fortunate that previous generations of African Americans were willing to sell their votes to candidates worse than the ones you're too proud to vote for to win you the rights you take for granted today. Perhaps they didn't feel like they had the luxury of waiting for their perfect candidate.
The slow erosion of civil rights protections and voters rights will prove that right in the long term. I wonder how long it will before the Republicans remove civil rights protection from lending and restrictions on land sales? When will they return the racist’s greatest weapon to them?
|
I must confess that I don't know very well what african americans of previous generations were willing or unwilling to do for their rights in general. I do know what MLK thought about the views of people who are not very dissimilar from what you can read in this thread though:
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Luxury of waiting for the perfect candidate, come the fuck on. I can buy that some people are falling for the "purity" talking point but I can't buy that people are falling for that.
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 10 2017 06:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 06:14 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2017 06:05 KwarK wrote:
Next you'll be disproving global warming with the concept of winter. Is that supposed to be a response to something? Yes. I'll try to explain it more clearly. Imagine I were telling you the climate was getting hotter. "Nonsense!" you cry, "these last three months since October have been getting steadily colder!" My claim would relate to a multidecade trend of warmer weather than comparable periods in previous years, your refutation to one specific season being colder than another. Trump vs Clinton is winter. The fact that even in the dead of winter, with Republicans controlling all three branches of government, the gays are still getting married is global warming. Things have been getting better steadily. The process of voting for the lesser of two evils works. Yeah, no. You're attributing "things getting better" to having no lines a party can cross and lose one's support so long as the other party is worse that are actually due to people refusing to accept either parties solutions until they get a better one or get replaced altogether. You're very fortunate that previous generations of African Americans were willing to sell their votes to candidates worse than the ones you're too proud to vote for to win you the rights you take for granted today. Perhaps they didn't feel like they had the luxury of waiting for their perfect candidate. The slow erosion of civil rights protections and voters rights will prove that right in the long term. I wonder how long it will before the Republicans remove civil rights protection from lending and restrictions on land sales? When will they return the racist’s greatest weapon to them?
What slow erosion? Things are steadily moving in the opposite direction. Like GH, you're conflating seasons with climate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
