It makes them uncomfortable to talk about it. Or acknowledge it's lingering effects. It's much more uncomfortable for the people suffering the lingering effects. But that's not what's important./s
It doesn’t make them uncomfortable. They just don’t want people to know that they’re still doing it.
Well that is why it makes them uncomfortable. People knowing what they're doing:-)
Didn't you hear? The past was always better, and Now is always the low ebb in the decline of our civilization until we return to the values that made yesterday great.
If the past is somehow to blame for the problems of today, that might mean there was something wrong with the past. If that's the case, then maybe other things from the past have problems, including things that I like or benefit me personally, or that changing would imply a lot of big scary changes that I'm not ready for.
That's why attempts to talk about little mistakes from the past like chattel slavery, indigenous genocide, phillipino genocide or endemic discrimination and institutionalized racism are just attempts by bad people to tear down perfection and keep us from returning to a simpler, better time where those mistakes never happened.
Also this: https://youtu.be/AeN_SVoJet0
I can't believe the US is about to let illiberal "Christo" tyrants win without a fight. Should do as Jon Stewart said, play on their level and just don't confirm the votes.
Trump doesn't qualify for president, per the 14th amendment. I'm kind of pissed that the fucking constitution is being treated as novel law and not the foundation for our laws.
But that is in an amendment so it only has to be followed 3/5ths of the way.
I'm actually really surprised we didn't have a new lawsuit about his ability to take the oath of office. Not that it will actually matter but these Trump sycophants should have to state publication they don't care what the law says.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Source article?
There's a lot but here's a reasonable one:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-threatens-defund-schools-teach-155006275.html
There isn't Just One Source article. It's been nearly 4 years worth of articles. Across many different publications. Look up anything where conservatives mention woke. They use it as a code word. In context to mean either addressing issues of racial oppression and disparity. Or gender discrimination. Sometimes both in the same usage.
Olivia Benson would have voted for Trump. Stabler would have voted for Biden. (Not Harris, he wrote in Biden)
What? No
1 out of every 5 Black voters voted for Trump.
So 4 out of every 5 black voters voted against Trump.
3 out of every 5 white voters voted for Trump.
If a wishful white Trump voter voted voraciously, how many votes would a wishful white Trump voter vivaciously vote? More than one, I bet.
No relation.
