at this point they've successfully controlled the discourse and should probably ALSO just stfu because now it's just boring. I do wonder what it takes to get this to be permissible to discuss though. Certainly we have to not be in the middle of a moral panic. What else?
-
-
as a matter of pushing policy he's trying to build a border wall and expel brown people with ambiguous immigration status. I'll grant you that he has merely consented to Red congress expected defunding of social welfare programs, and has not pushed that especially aggressively.
-
what I think a red attack on the truce would look like: 1. aggressively attacking affirmative action + diversity social programs 2. aggressively attacking employment protections (even if in practice they're ineffective) 3. aggressively cutting social welfare (?) . . .
-
4. actively pushing minority disenfranchisement (so, point here) 5. super-aggressive incarceration / brutal policing (same) [I'm sympathetic to arguments that low-income minority communities actually need *more* policing, and better; and that extant policing is badly done]
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Most sides in modern political life, to the extent they believe in any sort of truce/detente, are so utterly convinced of their own rectitude that they consider all actions taken by them as within the spirit of the arrangement.
-
Compare and contrast most political life during the Cold War, when sub-groups held their worst subject to the needs of the main group and both main groups (the US was arguably not as bad but not innocent) tolerated small infractions to avoid major conflict when possible.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.