Clarence Thomas has long tried to undercut the Voting Rights Act. Now, he may finally have the numbers
Clarence Thomas has long tried to undercut the Voting Rights Act. Now, he may finally have the numbers
Every single value they claim to support is a hollow lie that exists for their own enrichment and power, and it’s so starkly plain from every single policy they push when they have power I can’t fathom how people don’t see it. I especially cannot believe that even now we have people who cannot see it.
I feel like I’m in a world where 90% of people can’t read and have never watched the news sometimes, because it’s that blatantly obvious to me.
You have to realize that by the very nature of being on Lemmy, you’re vastly more informed than the average voter.
If the only news you consume is from Fox, you wouldn’t be able to see all that stuff.
…have never watched the news
People who get their information from watching the news on TV are probably worse than people who don’t get information at all.
People are going to shout that it’s Fox News that’s the problem, but the reality is all of the major sources of TV news are owned by billionaires. You’re just choosing what style boot you want on your neck.
Unfortunately, to be informed and intelligent requires a small ability to rationally evaluate information. It’s not always difficult to determine the truth, but most people can’t or won’t try.
His early career arc is kind of bonkers. He was one of only a small handful of black law students at Yale, and graduated with honors. But he had trouble finding a job after graduation, because the racist mid-70’s law partners thought he only got his law degree because of affirmative action. He ended up blaming Yale for giving him a worthless degree, when he wouldn’t have gotten into Yale at all, no matter how talented he was, if it weren’t for affirmative action.
If he had blamed the systemic racism in the profession instead, we might have had a very different Clarence Thomas.
“Home of the brave”.
Maybe at one point it was.
Pearl Harbor happened because America, and FDR, cared just enough about Japan’s invasion of China to embargo them. That’s simply not going to happen with Trump.
What you should be looking for in a historical comparison is rebellions and revolutions, in which case the cause is either people going hungry or Trump fucking with his own power base.
the cause is either people going hungry
Lot of empty fields out there with food that isn’t getting picked right now. This may be closer than we think.
I grew up in England thanks to a civil war, I’ve been to the US numerous times and have family who are American. I know very well your culture. And yes I will always blame European and American foreign policies for a lot of the world’s issues because that’s the truth, like it or not.
America isn’t a friendly nation to a lot of the world .
Fair is fair and you’re right. I am posting defeatist and judgemental comments, and it’s mainly out of extreme frustration. My cousins are freaking out and while I am closely following all the insane news about what’s going on internally, I can’t help feeling regular people aren’t doing enough to shut this down. Like there should be a general strike and cripple these billionaires!.
I guess you look at Europe and how they regularly shut shit down.(France as usual and lately the student protests in various European cities).
The issue with me is whatever government you lot have is going to have a major effect on the rest of the world, and this Trump government is a disgrace.
Fight the good fight and good luck. I will target Maga anywhere I see them.
I hear you. I think the difference is that France has way more worker protections, strong and influential unions, a solid social safety net, and frankly a less ruthless government, so there’s less fear of financial ruin for work stoppages.
Meanwhile, corporations in America keep the working poor as close to bonded slavery as they can get away with without pushing them over the edge to violence, though even that equilibrium is starting to shift based on worker attitudes. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, federal government as well as state governments regularly sided with corporations over workers and murdered hundreds of them, and workers mostly lost or had their lives destroyed. The frequency of conflict finally resulted in union protections… like 50 years later. Now most of those protections have been unraveled, and many low-income workers are a few months of missed rent payments away from homelessness. If they lose their job, there will be a dozen people waiting to take that job right after. So asking for a general strike is asking people to face certain financial ruin for themselves and their families.
That said, to be honest, it’s a wonder to me that there hasn’t been more violence between workers and corporations. As they keep taking things away from the working poor, though, I think it’s coming. The problem is that propaganda is so strong that the violence may be misdirected. Either way, worker retaliation leading to a wider conflict is one of the only avenues I can see for systemic change.