Home / General / Why Protest is Needed in Blue States

Why Protest is Needed in Blue States

Comments
/
/
/
939 Views

IMG_ralprotest.jpg_1_1_V91DAKB7_L33080382

As I have stated several times, there are tremendous benefits to the mass protests and continued pressure placed on politicians. The Betsy DeVos nomination, which might actually go down, is a great example. None of this happens without the utter outrage over how this plutocrat will hurt our children.

Now that takes moving Republicans, which is hard to do as most of them don’t care about our children. But protest really matters in the blue states too. As we all know, our Democratic politicians are a lot less uniform in their outlook than Republicans. Some are populists, some are close to Wall Street. Some are major union supporters, others keep their distance. Some see centrist respectability as a goal, others eschew it. Some will go to the mat to protect our most vulnerable citizens, others may well not. In all of these cases, protests move lame Democrats closer to the right way. In Rhode Island, this is critical. The Tea Party-style action here last week against Sheldon Whitehouse for voting to confirm Mike Pompeo got headlines throughout the left media. That got people’s attention, including that of the senator himself.

This sort of thing is even more critical with our governor, Gina Raimondo. The ultimate Wall Street Democrat, she is pretty bad on some issues, especially in destroying the pensions of union workers. Now, generally she has said the right thing publicly on resisting Trump, including at the beginning of the rally that challenged Whitehouse. But how far will she go in resisting Trump? Will she declare Rhode Island a sanctuary state and put it all on the line. So far, the answer is no.

“I don’t think [Donald Trump can withhold federal funds.] I don’t think it’s legal,” said Raimondo, “The President cannot unilaterally decree that. So what I’ve said is let’s take it a day at a time, let’s be vigilant but not hysterical, uh, that’s a lot of money, your know, $3 billion flows into Rhode Island and I do have to make sure- I have to be practical- and make sure that my folks don’t get hurt.” [italics mine]

So if it is ruled legal to withhold federal funds, asked Braude, does that mean you comply?

“It depends,” replied Raimondo. “This is all about the details. So we’ll wait and see how it goes. But- The mayor of Providence, for instance, has said, ‘Look, we’ll give up our federal money, we are a sanctuary city.’ I’m not there yet.”

Do you support [Elorza] on that, asked Braude.

“That’s his decision. He’s running the city, I get billions of dollars of federal money that the people of Rhode Island need so I have to be practical.”

It is estimated that there are 30,000 undocumented persons in Rhode Island. To a crowd of thousands, Raimondo’s support for their human rights was absolute. When questioned by a reporter, Raimondo remembers her fiduciary duties and suddenly those 30,000 people have a price tag she may not be willing to pay. We may stand in solidarity, but when $3 billion is on the line the term my folks suddenly doesn’t apply to the undocumented.

The undocumented may belong here, live here and pay taxes here, but they don’t pay $3 billion in taxes. $3 billion is $100,000 per undocumented man, woman and child.

Perhaps no one, documented or not, is worth that much to Governor Raimondo.

Now you might say she is being smart. That there is a price in which the state cannot pay to protect its most vulnerable residents. I would disagree. I think the state needs to stand up directly to Trump and dare the federal government to take on the state, with all the massive consequences that would lead to. It’s hardly surprising that Raimondo wouldn’t take the lead–if California does it and Connecticut does it, then Raimondo might follow. But no equivocation on this point can be acceptable and if she continues along these lines, we need direct action protests challenging her every day.

And the same goes for your mayors and governors,

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • nemdam

    I agree with all of this. But can I just make a request to everyone who does this to PLEASE not turn this into a purity contest? As in, if a politician who had a bad position flips to a good position due to pressure, can we thank and reward them instead of punish them for insincerity? (*COUGH* TPP)I know Erik understands this, but it’s directed at everyone.

    • I absolutely agree with this. We need to change people’s thinking, even just marginally, and welcome them into the fold when we succeed.

    • Well, I have no problem primarying lame Democrats. The general election contest is a different story.

      • nemdam

        Correct. Though I think there few lame Democrats to primary, YMMV.

        • Hercules Mulligan

          Depends on the state. RI is a good one to primary since it’s so blue. At the more local level, see all the horrendous state legislators in NY, or the wimps in MA.

          I also think it’s about time someone took down Feinstein, but we’ll see how that goes.

          • NoMoreAltCenter

            No one is taking down Feinstein because the party supports her

            • Murc

              This is sadly true. California Democrats seem to really really like her. I don’t quite get why, but they do. Maybe she does a ton of outreach?

              • joel hanes

                DiFi was lucky enough and savvy enough to publicly assume leadership when Harvey Milk was murdered, and she did fine in the aftermath. A big fraction of older California Dems will always think of her as hero while remembering those days.

                She plays political hardball like nobody’s business, especially within the party. No one wants to cross her.

                She is a master of the Senate’s arcane rules, and has important committee memberships, and all the seniority one could want. Before the Rs in the Senate went insane, that meant she was pretty effective, especially at preventing things she didn’t want to happen from happening, without leaving any fingerprints or taking any political damage. Just often enough, her goals and the goals of Dem voters and Dem pols are aligned. Any replacement will have to spend years accumulating those chops.

                Every once in a while she bestirs herself to champion some true-liberal thing, and makes sure that it makes the news. If you don’t closely watch her in the Senate, those things are what you know about her.

                Finally, she and Blum have Scrooge McDuck money, which is fungible for certain flavors of influence.

                • PhoenixRising

                  Everything after ‘she came out onto the steps of City Hall to meet the press with Harvey Milk and George Moscone’s blood on her blouse’ is commentary.

                  Even if that happened before a majority of today’s CA voters were adults.

            • Chetsky

              I’m planning on attending local Dem clubs to talk about this very subject. DiFi needs to be taught a lesson: you don’t fuck with the base.

              • NoMoreAltCenter

                Yeah, good luck with that

            • The party has supported her so far, in no small part because she could win the general and would vote mostly with the party in Washington.
              I think things have changed and will continue to over the next year and a half that a fresher more liberal more energized and energizing option will arise who can seriously challenge and, I am hopeful, unseat her. I think Gavin Newsom wants to be and thinks he is that person. I don’t think we know right now who that person is. It is my expectation that the resistance to Trump is going to breed a new generation of more radical Democrats. People like Newsom who have largely played by the rules and waited their turn may find that their opportunity has passed them by.

            • wengler

              The reaper will do what the California Democratic Party will not. She is getting way up there(she’s turning 84 this year).

      • cpinva

        “Well, I have no problem primarying lame Democrats.”

        and they should be made very aware of that. loudly, and on a daily basis. if they aren’t, they’ll just blow you off, as just one annoying constituent, not worth taking notice of.

    • NoMoreAltCenter

      Purity is in the eye of the beholder is the problem

    • Chetsky

      Yep. I’d like to suggest that the goal is to improve the median politician’s behaviour. I called up Feinstein’s office and really gave ’em heck (well, respectfully and with apologies b/c “you’re not responsible for this” — “I’ll be supporting a primary opponent unless my senator starts getting with 100% resistance”, yadda yadda). Ditto for two senators (Cortez Masto & Hassan) to whose campaigns I’d donated, and who were 3-out-of-6 voting for nominees. But then I called up Gillibrand & Merkley & Warren to thank ’em b/c even though they weren’t 100%, they were better, and specifically were laying into #NotMyPresident.

      I was really clear that I “and everybody else” would be remembering their actions in resisting “the fascist” and in future elections we would take their actions today into account.

      I think this is easy to do — and SPECIFICALLY, afterward I felt like thanking the ones doing a good job, made it EASIER for me to upbraid the ones that I thought were slipping.

      Now just gotta make sure to get on Feinstein’s case about 100% resistance to that Confederate Hobbit Sessions.

      • Hercules Mulligan

        This is a great example of pressure.

        I would also add that, primaries aside, while it is incumbent upon us to vote for Democrats even if they’re flawed, there’s no rule against our suggesting otherwise to scare said Democrats…

        • NoMoreAltCenter

          Crying wolf always works

          • Chetsky

            Oh fuck you. With a barbed-wire-wrapped broomstick. Attached to a jackhammer. On this site, you will find EVERY TIME that the FPers and most everybody else sez “oppose in the primary, support in the general”. YOU ACEREBRATE IDIOT.

            It’s not crying wolf to say and to DO

            I’ll be supporting a primary opponent

            Because in fact, I will be. Just like Rs did to Cantor, when they thought he was insufficiently right-wing.

            You cretin.

            • NoMoreAltCenter

              First of all, rude.

              Second of all, I was talking about pretending to not vote for Dems

            • TVTray

              That’s a hell of a contraption you described there. Where did you get such an idea?

              • Dr. Acula

                The Walking Dead? (see comment below)

            • Dr. Acula

              Instead of a barbed-wire-wrapped broomstick, just introduce him to Negan and Lucille.

    • Dilan Esper

      There is a difference between an insincere flip flop that a politician intends to adhere to (Bush 41 on abortion) and an insincere flip flop that a politician does not intend to adhere to (Obama when he flipped to anti-gay marriage).

      The problem with HRC on TPP wasn’t that she flip flopped, but that it wasn’t really believable that she was going to become a protectionist (or even that she would not just make cosmetic modifications to TPP and then support it).

      For a flip flop to have value, it must signify the politician’s intention to act differently in the future. Nobody believed that about Hillary and TPP.

      • NoMoreAltCenter

        And that was the problem. We knew where her heart was. And it didn’t help that her handlers were winking at people behind the scenes and basically saying it was electoral rhetoric

      • nemdam

        Given that her record was mixed on free trade, that she voted against the only multi-lateral free trade deal that came up during her time in the Senate, and that she was not a cheerleader for NAFTA when it was in vogue during her husband’s term, my impression was that she was ambivalent about free trade. She obviously supports trade with the world, but she was not a free trade zealot and is willing to not support it at times. She’s not a staunch protectionist, but looking at her overall trade record, I found her TPP opposition quite credible.

        • Dilan Esper

          I think you have to consider her husband’s record too, given they had the same advisors, she never repudiated his policies, etc. Taken together, her deviations on free trade look pretty cynical.

          Further, her earlier statement that the TPP was the gold standard was deadly.

          • Abbey Bartlet

            I think you have to consider her husband’s record too

            Of course you think that.

        • witlesschum

          I was optimistic that Clinton would see which way the winds were blowing in the Democratic Party and would calculate that risking a primary challenger from the still salty Sanderistas in 2020 wasn’t worth the risk.

          Remember when we had those kind of problems to think about?

    • TVTray

      I don’t think this is a very good time to be criticizing Democrats in general. Enough bad people on the other side!

      • JL

        It depends on the criticism, of course, but I don’t think criticizing Dems is unrelated to fighting Republicans. Elected Dems have more power than most of us to fight the Trumpist agenda, if they’ll take it and use it. Therefore, we want the best elected Dems we can get.

  • petemack

    Its certainly ‘taxation without representation’, which Republicans usually really don’t like. The state should sue for its fraction of tax dollars that are spent in discretionary funds.

    • ASV

      Its certainly ‘taxation without representation’, which Republicans usually really don’t like.

      Everybody turned away from the polls for not having the right kind of ID says “hi.”

  • The Lorax

    Join your local Indivisible group and do local stuff, too. My first meeting is Tuesday. It’ll be 20 of us, none of whom know each other.

    • This is not encouraging. Almost all of the local groups (within 10 miles, because I’m about 13 from NYC) are FB-based. Only one Meetup and the rest just gmail accounts.

      People depending on FB to maintain an organization are optimists, not realists.

      • SatanicPanic

        Can you expand on that?

      • The Lorax

        Oh yeah, I had to join FB to get involved with the group.

      • ChrisGrrr

        Thank you!
        Same here, in Brevard County (Cocoa Beach) – almost all communication takes place on FB. Without citing other peculiarities and concerns about the group I am aware enough and cognizant enough to utterly fear FB as a primary or sole communication venue.

        • The Lorax

          I created a FB account just for these sorts of activist purposes. It has my name but none of my other info. And I’ve not friended anyone.

        • Hob

          I think it’s worth adding that you don’t have to “fear” Facebook in the sense of “Facebook is out to get us and/or will collaborate with the government to get us” to think that they’re an unsafe platform for this; the arbitrariness of their editorial/moderation policy is bad enough. That is, if (as has happened to friends of mine) any FB account can be shut down for an unknown length of time because some random nitwit said you posted an inappropriate image, and the standards and appeal process for this are totally opaque, then it’s unwise to use it for organizing a large crowd of people to do anything important. It’s like if everyone used a type of phone that was known to brick itself without warning for weeks at a time– it doesn’t matter whether the phone is doing it on purpose or not.

      • Origami Isopod

        Agreed. Unfortunately the problem is that so many people are used to Facebook and disinclined to use something else, so the group organizers are hindered in their ability to organize if they don’t use FB.

        • JL

          This is one of my pet organizing peeves right now. I’m not sure what to do about it since I can’t exactly spit out a competitor to Facebook and get people to join. Publicize awareness of other useful organizing tools, I guess. Like the Celly app for group texting. It’s really hard to get a lot of non-techies to learn a new tool, though – I tried to get a group that I was part of to use Slack instead of long email threads that got buried in my inbox, for between-meetings conversation, and it was like trying to get a dog to fly. The only time anyone but me ever used it was to get in touch with me.

  • Murc

    I think the state needs to stand up directly to Trump and dare the federal government to take on the state

    I’m not not in favor of this, but typically state vs. federals doesn’t end well for the state in question.

    I mean, there’s no actual downside to the Republicans for telling Rhode Island to go fuck itself for defying the federal government.

    I’m a little bit worried that Trump’s enormous unpopularity is eventually going to be seen by the Republicans in the House and Senate as a foregone conclusion, and when that happens that they’ll go “fuck it, we’ll just do whatever we want and then if we’re in the minority again we’ll obstruct fixing it.”

    I mean, most of them do this anyway, because they might have solved American politics, but it might get more explicit. Especially since 2018 is a gift to them; I don’t think we could re-take the Senate if there was video of Trump fucking a goat on top of the Betsy Ross flag while Putin watches, lighting cigars off of the Bill of Rights.

    • efgoldman

      I believe that CA, as well as the mayors of several major cities, have told Mango Malignancy to go fuck himself with his threats.
      It’s not something the administration can do by fiat. If the Republiklowns want to get into a war by withholding money, the blue states can decide not to send their tax money to DC to subsidize the traitor states.

      • Chetsky

        How’s that work? I was wondering myself, b/c shit, I thought the IRS collected income tax directly, something similar for FICA? So (e.g.) how does the state of CA stop that? (Lordy, wish it would — that’d put a cockroach in Cheeto’s bonnet!)

        • Dave W.

          CA probably can’t, at least directly. On the other hand, the big IRS regional center that collects taxes from several states is located in Fresno. Do you think it might become the target of mass protests if the Feds insisted on collecting taxes from CA without giving anything back?

        • Dave W.

          And perhaps more effectively, since California has hired Eric Holder to represent them in any litigation against Trump, I would look forward to his suit claiming that cutting off those funds “offends the equal dignity of the states.”

  • Turkle

    I live in Astoria, Queens, which is an immigrant and yuppie neighborhood in NW Queens. We have a large Muslim population, predominantly Egyptian I think but new arrivals are from other Middle Eastern countries as well. We have a rally this evening I’ll be attending in support of our Muslim communities.

    This is the bluest city in a blue state but it’s still critical to show support for our Muslim neighbors!

    • Chetsky

      I live in SF. Ostensibly similar. And yet, there are techbros here, and they’re only superficially liberal. One of ’em wrote a letter to the mayor complaining about all the homeless people smelling up his streets. Dude needs the Richard Spencer treatment. And I’m sure he’s not alone. And he uses his money, I’m sure, to poison our city.

      So for sure, you need to demonstrate and make your voice heard. B/c those reptiles don’t demonstrate: they donate money, buy lunches, and silently get their way.

      • NoMoreAltCenter

        The problem that almost no one is owning up to Chetsky, is that wealthy tech bros and finance dudes who are fine with social liberalism but not adjusting class inequality ARE the ruling class of the Democratic Party coalition

        • Chetsky

          Funny that. During the election, I heard that Clinton’s base was black voters. And that it was the techbros who came out as hard-core bernie-or-busters. Certainly seems like that’s how it worked out in the general.

          Keep fuckin’ that chicken, NMAC.

          • NoMoreAltCenter

            Clinton’s base was mostly older people of all races. And you can track the support of HRC by the wealth of the area polled. Higher wealth, less support for Bernie. This isn’t hard.

            • humanoid.panda

              It’s almost as though wealth positively correlates to age..

            • Chetsky

              So tat’s a “yes, Clinton did clean Bernie’s clock when it came to black voters”. Good to know.

              Honey, don’t think your debating tactics are oh-so-clever. They’re actually oh-so-obvious and make you look like a shithead.

  • NoMoreAltCenter

    “Outrage against plutocrats” seems much more fashionable when there is a Republican in the White House. Even though income and wealth inequality continued to increase under Obama. This feels cynical to me.

    • Yeah, I never fucking wrote about income and wealth inequality under Obama.

      • NoMoreAltCenter

        Did I say you didn’t?

        • efgoldman

          Purity troll alert

          • NoMoreAltCenter

            “Purity” is rapidly becoming a thought terminating cliche

            • Adam The K

              Never have I seen someone invent a better self-description.

              • NoMoreAltCenter

                Weak. Try again

          • TVTray

            *SIRENS*

        • nemdam

          Well you did say this feels cynical. So yes, the logical conclusion of this sentiment means that you did.

          • NoMoreAltCenter

            Incorrect. I have seen Loomis writings on the subject before. But I rarely remember them containing criticism of the presidential administration then in power.

            And when Goldman Sachsers and neocons made up a huge portion of Clinton’s cabinet, there might have been at most some performative grumbling, but even that would have surprised me.

            • Murc

              But I rarely remember them containing criticism of the presidential administration then in power.

              This is because the Obama Administration was far less worse than Trump’s is and generally was working to make things better across the board, not worse. He came at Obama much less than he is coming at Trump because there was less to come at him about.

              Also, if you think Clinton’s cabinet would have been in any way equivalent to Trump’s, you’re out of your damn mind.

              • NoMoreAltCenter

                Not equivalent, just plain old bad

                • Murc

                  This is still wrong. Clinton’s politics, domestically at least, are insufficient, not actively bad. There’s a difference.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  You said “cabinet” Stop switching goalposts.

                • (((Malaclypse)))

                  When you find yourself arguing that Clinton’s cabinet would be as bad as Trump’s, you should take a long look and wonder how you became so pig-fuckingly ignorant about the world.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  When you find yourself unable to parse someone else posts, you need to take a long hard look at the quality of your education

                • Murc

                  You said “cabinet” Stop switching goalposts.

                  First of all, a President’s cabinet makeup is determined by their politics.

                  Second of all, even if we don’t grant that, you’re STILL wrong. Her cabinet would not, in fact, have been plain old bad.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  Convincing argument, murc

                • Murc

                  Convincing argument, murc

                  Thank you! I’m glad you concede the point.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  Intentionally confusing sarcasm for earnestness is still funny no matter who does it

                • Abbey Bartlet

                  Some of Clinton’s politics, domestically at least, are insufficient, not actively bad, and others are excellent, maybe the best we’ve seen.

              • Thom

                It is pretty simple: Obama raised taxes on the wealthy and increased distribution. Trump plans to do the opposite.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  Of course Obama was superior to a Republican. I voted for him twice and volunteered for him. I am not even necessarily rabidly Anti-Dem in the stereotypical sense, I am Anti-Defending The Dems From The Left, because they still support social hierarchy and the capitalist system. They just suck less than the Republicans.

                  And if you care about moving towards a world in accordance with Left values, there will never be enough Dems in the White House, HoR, or Senate to get there. Ever.

                • Tom in BK

                  I am Anti-Defending The Dems From The Left, because they still support social hierarchy and the capitalist system boring.

                  FTFY.

            • Chetsky

              On your first point, the FPers can do it right, but just … search “arne duncan” in the leetle search box up there.

              On your second point, maybe it has something to do with the fact that there was a tangerine usurper on the other side?

            • JL

              Loomis is possibly the blogger here who was most inclined to criticize the Obama administration. I understand the point you’re trying to make, and the type of person you’re trying to argue with, but you’re barking up the wrong tree directing it at Loomis. You sound like the guy on Twitter who was badgering an ACLU staffer of many years (and Occupy and antiwar activist) about whether she’d ever criticized Obama when he did stuff wrong the way she was criticizing Trump. Or the guy aggressively asking Spencer Ackerman (who partnered with Greenwald at the Guardian on the Snowden stuff) whether the Guardian had ever covered Obama-era drone strikes that killed kids.

        • tsam

          Then do your first sentence and subsequent sentence fragments mean, if you’re not giving Erik shit for jumping on a bandwagon? He IS that bandwagon.

          • NoMoreAltCenter

            Erik Loomis is the only person here who could even generously be described as leftist, but claiming he is the “Anti Inequality bandwagon” is a bit much

            • tsam

              To me, someone who dislikes the idea of self-driving vehicles because it will take jobs away from the drivers (something which regularly gets him called a Luddite) can safely be called as deep into leftism as need be. He’s not a communist, but he sure as hell has the backs of the working classes.

              Regardless, I asked how this post is cynical, and you didn’t answer.

              • NoMoreAltCenter

                Honestly, I don’t even think that is a productive mindset. Automation should be hailed as a way to make the world easier for the working class. But that is mostly neither here nor there

                • tsam

                  Not at the expense of a living for millions of workers. Automation is coming and nobody can or will stop it, but Erik’s point is that something needs to be done about the displacement, and nobody has proposed anything to mitigate that problem.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  I think we need to face that it is either Basic Income (which Loomis hates), Basic Income in All But Name, or the abolition of capitalism. Anything else is too horrific to contemplate.

                  Even as relatively conservative as Basic Income is, we won’t get it in the US. Which should make one question the viability of the continuance of the US as anything other than a fascist-oligarchical hellhole patrolled by drones.

                • “We won’t get it (Guaranteed Annual Income) in the US”

                  If my understanding of Loomis’s position on Guaranteed Annual Income is correct, that is his take as well.

                • Murc

                  I think we need to face that it is either Basic Income (which Loomis hates)

                  This is a lie.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  I have never seen him say a positive word about it, either the idea itself or its viability. But perhaps “hate” is too strong a word

                • “Perhaps hate is too strong a word”

                  Ya think?

                • veleda_k

                  I believe it’s abundantly clear that thinking is not one of NoMore’s strong points.

              • so-in-so

                And who can forget Erik's support of TPP!

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  TPP is a silly issue that we should ignore when criticizing Dem candidates, btw. At least that is what I have heard

                • #peoplearesaying

            • delazeur

              Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

              • TVTray

                JFC

      • scarmig

        Trump and Obama are identical Presidents. They literally share the same physical body. Drones! Inequality! Muslim bans!

        Jill Stein 2020!

        • NoMoreAltCenter

          Well, just drones and inequality

      • Chetsky

        Erik, Erik, you’ve got it all wrong. This one isn’t a purity troll. This one is an 8-year-old. Maybe actually 5-year-old. In any case, young enough to never have heard or seen on teevee about Occupy Wall Street. Just a babby, is NMAC.

        NMAC: Wow, you’ve got excellent grammar and spelling! Can you give me the name of your 2nd-grade teacher? I’d like to send her a letter, see if I can get you extra credit for your next report card?

        • NoMoreAltCenter

          I remember Occupy Wall Street. I remember them not wanting to work with the Democrats because the Democrats were tied to corporations. And I remember them mostly getting cleaned out while Obama said and did nothing.

          • Chetsky

            Origami Isopod nails it.

            Nobody is good enough for NoMoreAltCenter. At least, nobody with any power.

            • NoMoreAltCenter

              I actually really like Jeremy Corbyn.

              • Abbey Bartlet

                Nobody is good enough for NoMoreAltCenter. At least, nobody with any power.

                I actually really like Jeremy Corbyn.

                That doesn’t refute the point.

                • TVTray

                  What do you mean? Do you think Corbyn doesn’t have power?

              • Dr. Acula

                I bet you also really like George Galloway.

                What’s your point?

          • I think that especially at this time the idea that the federal government is entitled to bend cities and local police forces to its will is it not one we should be promoting.

    • Hogan

      Is there anything in the OP about plutocrats, or do you just have something you want to cough up and you’re too lazy to start your own blog?

      • so-in-so

        He could, and all two readers would no doubt be thrilled.

        Bigger audience here.

        • NoMoreAltCenter

          I should start a podcast and make 30,000 a month

    • SatanicPanic
      • NoMoreAltCenter

        According to the institute for policy studies, wealth and income inequality has been growing steadily for 30 straight years

        • SatanicPanic

          Do you have a link to a recent report supporting this? Or something that disproves the Census Bureau’s data?

          • NoMoreAltCenter

            First of all, even what you reported isn’t helping your case. “Income grew for all rungs of the ladder” =/= income and wealth inequality decreased. Read Piketty ffs

            • SatanicPanic

              Did you not read the first thing I posted? You didn’t even have to click through.

              Notably, lower-income households saw the largest income gains in percentage terms.

            • Chetsky
              • NoMoreAltCenter

                I am quite a bit skeptical, given that Mother Jones so often tends to be centrist and a booster of New Democrat-ish politics in modern times…and every other source I read that isn’t wholeheartedly Pro-Obama says the opposite, but this does require more research

                • Origami Isopod

                  Nobody is good enough for NoMoreAltCenter. At least, nobody with any power.

                • SatanicPanic

                  Trying to save face by discounting the source. Is NMAC Donald Trump?

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  You should always question sources.

                • TVTray

                  NMAC are you Trump??

                • Chetsky

                  And now we know you didn’t even bother to read it. How do we know? B/c Drum is quoting (and pasting graphs) from the economic report of the president. An official USG publication.

                  You with your “always question sources” would merely need to click thru to the original report and check that Drum wasn’t lying, eh?

                  But I’m sure you didn’t. B/c yaknow, you’re just a troll.

                • My impression, based on a cursory reading of the article, is that the report studied the impacts of Obama administration policies on income inequality. It shows those policies reduced income inequality.

                  During the Obama administration, however, other forces increased inequality. Some state policies, for example, as well as the lingering impacts of the recession and impacts of previous policies (over thirty years worth).

                  So it’s possible that NoMoreAltCenter is right that inequality continued to increase under Obama, while wrong to blame Obama’s policies for causing that. One could say Obama should have done more to reduce inequality. One could also say that it is remarkable he was able to do as much as he did.

    • NoMoreAltCenter

      I am not against political compromises. But there are compromises and there are compromises

  • Perhaps no one, documented or not, is worth that much to Governor Raimondo.

    Well, it looks like she has a price limit for human rights.

    • Chetsky

      Erik, you’ve written before about how RI, solidly Dem, basically doesn’t have an R establishment, so anybody who wants to be in politics is a Dem. And hence, there are lots of Dems who support policies that are offensively anti-Dem-constituencies. Is this sufficiently true of Raimondo that she needs to be attacked viciously from the left?

      ETA: Attacked in the primary, I presume. And that the general is a walkover.

  • AMK

    Legislation is needed in the blue states. They should have sanctuary state bills, Romneycare bills, and top-bracket tax increase bills ready to go at a moment’s notice.

    • TVTray

      Automatic voter registration!

  • Downpuppy

    One of the groups noticing the protests is the 447 DNC electors.

    A few more weeks of fierce resistance and they might get woke for the leadership election.

  • Pingback: [BLOG] Some Saturday links | A Bit More Detail()

It is main inner container footer text