Originally Posted by Mikebert

Yes, his take is neo-progressivism = Social Justice ideology. A simple way to explain it as the belief system behind SJWs. The term SJW is in common use now so people know what it is about.

It is in common use, and it is also a political pejorative anymore. As I've explained before, since no one views their own ideology as evil, even if it is, and most ideologies favor one grouping of people, a race, an ethnicity or nation (using Stalin's definition of course) or a class just about everyone can claim to be a social justice warrior if they wanted to. Neo-Progressive describes their ideology. Ideology is what matters here.

The term neo-progressivism makes more sense as the combination of a entrepreneurial approach to making the world a better place. Substitute "market-based" for entrepreneurial and you have neo-liberal. Bascially, neoliberal became a dirty word so now its neoprogressive. The emphasis of N-P is even more on the social side than N-L, reflecting the continued studious avoidance of economics amongst progressives.

Again, it is evident that you didn't read the article I posted, nor the video I shared. This is literally the ABC of what I'm talking about here, so if you can't get this, then there is no point in digging deeper.

Neo-Progressivism is the collectivist world view that sees various groups (they use the term class--improperly of course) and seeks actively to work against those that are white, heterosexual and male. It does this through Nth (seriously I've lost count) Feminism, and a whole whose of other pseudo-ideologies and pseudo-movements.

Neo-Liberalism could be more likened to the Reaganite/Thatcherite approach to economics and politics. Neo-Progressivism is often called "Cultural Marxism" by those who are normally on the right. It should be noted that Neo-Progressivism has nothing to do with Marxism.

It's the sort of thing that would appeal to folks who spend a lot of time with the internet, either as users or workers. SJWism can be thought of a branch of NP is this larger sense, but it is nihilistic, self-defeating and fundamentally unimportant movement. I suspect it will disappear as a new generation who have grown up with social media comes of age.

One can hope because some of these people sound like they are insane.

SJW's don't called themselves SJWs. Other people do; the term is perjorative. It is like Shakers, Lollards, or queer.

Not all pejorative terms are shunned by those who would be called by them. For example I've embraced the term queer (as I have little in common with petty-bourgeois white gay culture, not being white or petty-bourgeois and liking dick isn't a culture). I've come across SJW who do indeed call themselves by that term. Usually in the manner I use the term queer, to reclaim it and remove it's power as a pejorative.

In what sense are they on the left? I know a conservative will call them such as a way to slur the left. You are on the left. Do you see them as fellow travelers?

No. They are on the left, but they are not a fellow travelers. Just like a Rand Paul Libertarian does not view the Tea Party as fellow travelers.

You didn't know that? I have said that I am a New Dealer today (I used to be neoliberal about 20 years ago). I like Sanders the best of the presidential candidates, but Clinton will serve as far as I am concerned. You are a Marxist and so would naturally support a Republican--any Republican, which you do.

I support Republicans only as a tactic to bring about a revolutionary situation. Personally every last one of them could die in a fire and I'd feel sorry for the fire. That being said, your description seems pretty centrist to me. You are a either a moderate Republican or a Conservative Democrat who got turned off by the Crazy in the GOP.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...and what if the Franco-like reactionaries win the suddenly-heated war? Do you think that you could outlast them?

The American Right has the heritage of

(1) slave-owning, and later, sharecropper-exploiting planters
(2) profiteers characteristic of the Gilded Age
(3) superstition-mongering religious hucksters
(4) an executive elite devoid of conscience but that has waxed fat by treating others badly

That coalition is rock-solid and utterly ruthless. If it wins it gets everything.

Revolution brings reaction, and that coalition would kill tens of millions to protect its billions. Don't play with the political equivalent of a forest fire.

I'm a revolutionary, my goal is to bring revolution. That being said, forest fires are part of the natural cycle of a forest. Many species of trees cannot propagate themselves without it catching fire from time to time. I think the US is a bit over grown if you ask me and we could do with a forest fire.

As to the history of that class, I'm well aware of it.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Black Lives Matter is not a case of the media finding raw meat but volunteers and amateurs--people like us, using their cellphones to make an end run around the media. Police have been stopping and frisking and killing African-Americans for years and the corporate media treated it as "non-news" and tried to ignore it. It was the cellphone videos going viral that made police shootings impossible to ignore, from the transit policeman's murder of an African-American at Fruitvale Station in Oakland on. And the stories were treated incident by incident, one in Ferguson MO, one in New York and so on, until the trend line was established, lines drawn between incidents and the situation became impossible for the corporate suits who control the media corporations to ignore. Short of the kind of efficient control of social media and imprisonment of people for "making trouble" that we see in China and Iran, there is no way to put this genii back in the bottle.

I was listening to public radio at work this morning and they were talking about a black woman in Texas who was pulled over, arrested, and died in the county jail of what the police claimed was suicide. The official police report claimed the woman was being physically and verbally abusive to the officer but the recording she had made during the encounter shows that she was just politely asking why she was pulled over and the police officer screamed at her with pure rage to shut up and obey his orders. The implication is that the "suicide" was actually murder by police officers enraged by a black woman daring to not blindly obey them.

Originally Posted by playwrite

There's nothing here but conjecture and anecdotes; your views are not supported within the 2008/2012 Coalition.

You're caught up in the Trump circus show brought to you by the 'entertaining news' (the Donald finally issued his first poli-ad saying he felt guilty not having to do so since he's been getting enormous free coverage by the entertaining news). It's pretty obvious this is a form of selection bias - you don't like Clinton and only hold that 'information' that supports her un-electability in your mind.

I went through this with another poster, JustPassingThrough ("the polls are skewed! the polls are skewed!), in 2012 and it was pretty amusing - at least up until a few days after that election; the stakes were high for him and I thought we might have to call a suicide watch. I don't think you have much actual interest in this election so I'm hoping my derived amusement will be fairly unlimited up to and hopefully at least a few weeks past November 8.

We're definitely marking your words.

It is my contention that Hillary will not be elected if nominated. If she isn't nominated, of course she won't be elected. As to my involvement with the election--beyond voting (for any Republican if Hillary runs) my interest in the election is limited. It is at best a side show, and at worst a train wreck you just can't look away from.

As to JPT, he has more delusions than most so I wouldn't use him as a metric for anything.

Originally Posted by Odin

I was listening to public radio at work this morning and they were talking about a black woman in Texas who was pulled over, arrested, and died in the county jail of what the police claimed was suicide. The official police report claimed the woman was being physically and verbally abusive to the officer but the recording she had made during the encounter shows that she was just politely asking why she was pulled over and the police officer screamed at her with pure rage to shut up and obey his orders. The implication is that the "suicide" was actually murder by police officers enraged by a black woman daring to not blindly obey them.

What we only find out by reading the news reports about Sandra Bland (the whole incident happened last summer) was that the police officer in question was Latino. Living in a state with both large numbers of African-Americans and even larger numbers of Latinos (California), it is easy to see that race is not just a matter of black and white. Latinos traditionally have been as or even more racist than white Americans. Latin American society has many gradations of race, codified in Catholic parish records (one reason why there is a great deal of anticlericalism in Latin America) between (from high to low status) crillo white to mestizo to mullatto (of varying gradations from mulatto up to octaroon) to Native American to African-American to zambo (mixed Native American and African). With the Church traditionally keeping score so that people can practise limpieza de sangre (purity of blood).
Latin American immigrants have in many cases brought this racism to the US with them. Here in California we have seen Latino gangs busted for hate crimes in places like Compton and Highland Park for attempting to drive non-gang member African Americans out of the neighbourhood. Many Latinos claim white status rather than Latino status on optional statistics whenever they can. And those of us who look at Mexican telenovelas will notice that the characters are not only a lot whiter than is normal for Mexico, but whiter than the characters on US soap operas too.
And it is this Latino racism that is the "secret sauce" that has enabled Texas Republicans to keep power in a state that is more minority white than California is. A significant percentage of Latinos make common cause with whites and have done so since Texas became independent from Mexico. The Sandra Bland incident pulls away the veil on a lot of this Latino racism for those who have eyes to see it.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

2012 was what one would expect of an election against an incumbent President. The incumbent usually wins unless he or she is completely out of touch with the country or the national mood has shifted completely ala Carter or a 12 year run of one party has exhausted whatever push created that run in the first place ala George HW Bush. The Republican Establishment did an excellent job of stage managing the 2012 election and colaescing behind the candidate they originally wanted, namely Mitt Romney. The problem with Romney was that Romney, the corporate raider, the job killer, the vulture capitalist was everything that less affluent voters saw as wrong with the economy and the Republican Party. And Romney still came within 2 percentage points of defeating Obama on the popular vote (though Obama still might have won on electoral votes). Frankly, the Romney debacle (and the poor performance of the economy and worsening conditions for poor white males) has paved the way for Trump.

Let's see the Romney-Obama contest correctly:

From
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...ts-arent-close

Obama got 51.1 percent of the popular vote to Mitt Romney's 47.2 percent, a four point margin. (Let's all pause for a moment and savor the fact that history will show that Romney won … 47 percent.) That's a wider margin than George W. Bush won by in 2004 (51-48), when pundits on the right like Charles Krauthammer declared that he had earned a mandate.

That makes Obama the first president to crack 51 percent two elections in a row since Dwight Eisenhower more than a half-century ago. (Sorry, conservatives, Ronald Reagan only reached 50.75 percent in 1980.)

Obama won 26 states and the District of Columbia, piling up 332 electoral votes. You can think of it another way: There is no state in Obama's column which would have swung the election to Romney had he won it. In other words, if Romney had pulled a stunning upset and won California's 55 electoral votes … he'd still have lost.

There were only four especially close states in the 2012 election. Only Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia were decided by less than 5 percentage points. (Note: Romney won one of them, North Carolina; had he swept those four states … he'd have still lost the election as Obama totaled 272 electoral votes in the rest of the country.) Four is the smallest number of close states in a presidential election since Reagan trounced Walter Mondale nearly 30 years ago.

I don't know how well Trump will actually do on delegates. Translating opinion polls into winning primaries and caucuses requires a ground game, something Trump is playing catch-up on. But this is turning out to be a terrible election for the Democrats to be reverting to machine politics and in effect, pre-selecting their candidate for President. Hillary Clinton's "it's my turn" candidacy seems to have been based on a complementary Jeb Bush "it's my turn" candidacy that would turn voters off, not on. Democratic machine politics might be able to win a low turnout election (2012 was lower turnout than 2008). But so far, this election is not going according to script.

I'm not sure what "machine politics" refers to. Obviously, Sanders is relying more on small contributions and does not take any contributions from Wall Street and big corporations. Beyond that, a "machine" doesn't matter much; it's up to the people to decide, not party pol endorsements. The people know that.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

It is my contention that Hillary will not be elected if nominated. If she isn't nominated, of course she won't be elected. As to my involvement with the election--beyond voting (for any Republican if Hillary runs) my interest in the election is limited. It is at best a side show, and at worst a train wreck you just can't look away from.

As to JPT, he has more delusions than most so I wouldn't use him as a metric for anything.

I agree with you. Bernie Sanders can probably defeat Trump in a head to head ideological contest. Hillary Clinton cannot. Especially when there are issues such as single-payer health care (Trump is in favour of it, Hillary against) where Trump actually runs to the Left of Hillary.

Originally Posted by Odin

I was listening to public radio at work this morning and they were talking about a black woman in Texas who was pulled over, arrested, and died in the county jail of what the police claimed was suicide. The official police report claimed the woman was being physically and verbally abusive to the officer but the recording she had made during the encounter shows that she was just politely asking why she was pulled over and the police officer screamed at her with pure rage to shut up and obey his orders. The implication is that the "suicide" was actually murder by police officers enraged by a black woman daring to not blindly obey them.

If it was a murder then there should be evidence for murder. That being said, I've seen the video of the incident in question. Had she been a black male she would have gotten her ass beat by the police because she didn't follow a very common sense rule when dealing with the police while stopped by them in a car. That rule is "stay in your car".

I blame her parents for not making her watch this PSA by Chris Rock.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Let's see the Romney-Obama contest correctly:

From
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...ts-arent-close

Obama got 51.1 percent of the popular vote to Mitt Romney's 47.2 percent, a four point margin. (Let's all pause for a moment and savor the fact that history will show that Romney won … 47 percent.) That's a wider margin than George W. Bush won by in 2004 (51-48), when pundits on the right like Charles Krauthammer declared that he had earned a mandate.

That makes Obama the first president to crack 51 percent two elections in a row since Dwight Eisenhower more than a half-century ago. (Sorry, conservatives, Ronald Reagan only reached 50.75 percent in 1980.)

Obama won 26 states and the District of Columbia, piling up 332 electoral votes. You can think of it another way: There is no state in Obama's column which would have swung the election to Romney had he won it. In other words, if Romney had pulled a stunning upset and won California's 55 electoral votes … he'd still have lost.

There were only four especially close states in the 2012 election. Only Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia were decided by less than 5 percentage points. (Note: Romney won one of them, North Carolina; had he swept those four states … he'd have still lost the election as Obama totaled 272 electoral votes in the rest of the country.) Four is the smallest number of close states in a presidential election since Reagan trounced Walter Mondale nearly 30 years ago.




I'm not sure what "machine politics" refers to. Obviously, Sanders is relying more on small contributions and does not take any contributions from Wall Street and big corporations. Beyond that, a "machine" doesn't matter much; it's up to the people to decide, not party pol endorsements. The people know that.

Machine politics is something both sides engage in. When you bus people from churches (white Evangelical or African American) to polling places relying on peer pressure to get people to vote your way, you are engaging in machine politics. (And arguably, using social networking the way Obama (and now Bernie Sanders) do is Machine Politics 2.0 or 3.0).
There's nothing inherently wrong with political machines. The Democrats came a long way (all the way back from the Civil War) and helped a lot of people including workers and immigrants with big city machines that engaged labour unions and immigrants. (The Great Society was the apogee of this approach). Where the Dems have gone wrong is in building a coalition ONLY of educated voters and minorities. And abandoning a white working class that educated Dems see as racist and sexist and uneducated and "too religious" even as generation by generation race as a social issue has become attenuated in the white working class. (Interracial marriage is tolerated, for example to a degree that would have been unheard of 50 years ago). Even something like gay marriage (and transgender rights) seems to be something of a non-issue this election cycle. Only abortion is left as a potent social issue. (Immigration is more of an economic issue than a social issue and is as much about a rejection of the Republican tacit compromise of toleration of undocumented immigrants as an underclass ineligible for citizenship as it is of amnesty and citizenship).
The problem for the Democrats is that they are reverting to machine politics with half the machine out of order.

Originally Posted by playwrite

At the risk of upsetting Eric -



Justin Bieber, meet your daddy!

Stars and Stripes forever and like father like son.

+ Both are like tatted to the max, man.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Machine politics is something both sides engage in. When you bus people from churches (white Evangelical or African American) to polling places relying on peer pressure to get people to vote your way, you are engaging in machine politics. (And arguably, using social networking the way Obama (and now Bernie Sanders) do is Machine Politics 2.0 or 3.0).
There's nothing inherently wrong with political machines. The Democrats came a long way (all the way back from the Civil War) and helped a lot of people including workers and immigrants with big city machines that engaged labour unions and immigrants. (The Great Society was the apogee of this approach). Where the Dems have gone wrong is in building a coalition ONLY of educated voters and minorities. And abandoning a white working class that educated Dems see as racist and sexist and uneducated and "too religious" even as generation by generation race as a social issue has become attenuated in the white working class. (Interracial marriage is tolerated, for example to a degree that would have been unheard of 50 years ago). Even something like gay marriage (and transgender rights) seems to be something of a non-issue this election cycle. Only abortion is left as a potent social issue. (Immigration is more of an economic issue than a social issue and is as much about a rejection of the Republican tacit compromise of toleration of undocumented immigrants as an underclass ineligible for citizenship as it is of amnesty and citizenship).
The problem for the Democrats is that they are reverting to machine politics with half the machine out of order.

I don't see any basis for claiming that the Democrats have "abandoned" the white working class. If many Democrats see them as racist, etc., that's because of how these "working class whites" decided to vote. As an election worker over the years, I don't remember ever not calling or visiting voters because they were white or uneducated or working class. We called people who indicated they would favor our candidate. We didn't call Republicans. People decide themselves which "machine" they are in by how they register and vote.

Hillary actually did better than Obama in the Democratic 2008 primaries in states with lots of "working class voters" who vote or register Democratic. They may help her in states like OH and PA.

Bernie Sanders can probably defeat Trump in a head to head ideological contest. Hillary Clinton cannot. Especially when there are issues such as single-payer health care (Trump is in favour of it, Hillary against) where Trump actually runs to the Left of Hillary.

I'm not so sure Trump embraces single payer health care anymore.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Whether you yourself don't like Obama because he's black or not, is not relevant. Many folks are like you and dislike his policies. Many others don't like him because he's black. It's not the only reason, even for them. But it can be seen as a factor because of some statements by tea party folks, and because of the voting record of southern whites.

Killing of unborn babies? Why can't we make the abortion bill available to all who want it, and then outlaw abortion for most pregnancies after a few weeks? Why not take the issue off the table instead of continuing the culture wars? Don't we have more important issues to be concerned about? Opposing Clinton and Obama over abortion, means you support global warming, inequality, money dominating politics, corporate misbehavior, unnecessary wars, and all the other results of Republican policies.

I consider the killing of unborn babies as evil act.
This does not mean that I support other evils such as unnecessary wars, corporate misbehavior, inequality, etc.
I do see the trend of increasing wealth ( the 0.1%) as a problem that has been getting worse for last 20 years.
-No easy solution, but we should make a serious attempt.

I still think that viewing opposition to Obama as race based is overdone and tends to ignore the real underlying issues.

Originally Posted by radind

I consider the killing of unborn babies as evil act.

But people disagree on what constitutes a "baby." Is it a zygote a few minutes old?

This does not mean that I support other evils such as unnecessary wars, corporate misbehavior, inequality, etc.
I do see the trend of increasing wealth ( the 0.1%) as a problem that has been getting worse for last 20 years.
-No easy solution, but we should make a serious attempt.

I still think that viewing opposition to Obama as race based is overdone and tends to ignore the real underlying issues.

Still, dealing with those issues you mention means Democrats must be preferred over Republicans.

My pick among the GOP candidates is Rubio. ( I like Carson, but realize that he has no chance).

Originally Posted by radind

My pick among the GOP candidates is Rubio. ( I like Carson, but realize that he has no chance).

Very militaristic; extremely conservative on economics; total believer in trickle-down, pro-corporate enabling of misbehavior, tax breaks for the rich, enabling "job creaters," selling this as "up to date" when it's centuries old. If you want more inequality and more war, vote for Rubio.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But people disagree on what constitutes a "baby." Is it a zygote a few minutes old?

.

A big problem in dealing with abortion is that one's basic belief system makes other points of view difficult( or impossible) to accept. There does not appear to be a solution to the impasse and little hope of progress on this issue.
My initial concern was to flag the over use of race at the expense of even recognizing other ( more important) issues.

On the issue of wealth disparity, the Democrats have not made any progress either.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Very militaristic; extremely conservative on economics; total believer in trickle-down, pro-corporate enabling of misbehavior, tax breaks for the rich, enabling "job creaters," selling this as "up to date" when it's centuries old. If you want more inequality and more war, vote for Rubio.

Of the set available, I don't see a better choice than Rubio. Who would you pick if forced to choose a GOP candidate?

War can come to us( the USA) , whether we have a Democrat or a Republican as president.

Originally Posted by radind

Of the set available, I don't see a better choice than Rubio. Who would you pick if forced to choose a GOP candidate?

I would never choose one. But of those still running, probably Kasich-- who has NO chance-- is the least worst.

War can come to us( the USA) , whether we have a Democrat or a Republican as president.

But war as emitting from us (rather than coming to us) is now the province of Republicans.

Rubio (along with Fiorina) is the worst war-monger of the bunch, based on his statements and his calls for a "clash of civilizations" (war on Muslims per se, not just the IS or even Muslim terrorists). Republicans today represent the militarism that used to be more-often Democratic, before and including Vietnam.

Democrats today represent war as a last resort, waged multi-laterally. Carter, Clinton and Obama have been more measured and cautious about war, and have been effective at what Carter called "waging peace." Democrats in congress have been the anti-war party most often; all 22 senators who voted against the Iraq war were Democrats, and almost entirely from blue states.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

What we only find out by reading the news reports about Sandra Bland (the whole incident happened last summer) was that the police officer in question was Latino. Living in a state with both large numbers of African-Americans and even larger numbers of Latinos (California), it is easy to see that race is not just a matter of black and white. Latinos traditionally have been as or even more racist than white Americans. Latin American society has many gradations of race, codified in Catholic parish records (one reason why there is a great deal of anticlericalism in Latin America) between (from high to low status) crillo white to mestizo to mullatto (of varying gradations from mulatto up to octaroon) to Native American to African-American to zambo (mixed Native American and African). With the Church traditionally keeping score so that people can practise limpieza de sangre (purity of blood).
Latin American immigrants have in many cases brought this racism to the US with them. Here in California we have seen Latino gangs busted for hate crimes in places like Compton and Highland Park for attempting to drive non-gang member African Americans out of the neighbourhood. Many Latinos claim white status rather than Latino status on optional statistics whenever they can. And those of us who look at Mexican telenovelas will notice that the characters are not only a lot whiter than is normal for Mexico, but whiter than the characters on US soap operas too.
And it is this Latino racism that is the "secret sauce" that has enabled Texas Republicans to keep power in a state that is more minority white than California is. A significant percentage of Latinos make common cause with whites and have done so since Texas became independent from Mexico. The Sandra Bland incident pulls away the veil on a lot of this Latino racism for those who have eyes to see it.

I'm reminded of the people trying to defend George Zimmerman insisting that he could not be racist because he's Hispanic.

Originally Posted by radind

A big problem in dealing with abortion is that one's basic belief system makes other points of view difficult (or impossible) to accept.

Maybe, to the extent that your "belief system" includes the notion that Church doctrine must be accepted. Otherwise, it's a fairly arbitrary line as to when a fetus is a "baby."

There does not appear to be a solution to the impasse and little hope of progress on this issue.

Why doesn't the abortion pill take the issue off the table?

My initial concern was to flag the over use of race at the expense of even recognizing other ( more important) issues.

If race matters in actual policy and government behavior, which it often does, then it's super-important. It's one of the defining divides in American politics throughout its history. But sure, there's other reasons people oppose Obama besides his race.

On the issue of wealth disparity, the Democrats have not made any progress either.

During Democratic administrations, income equality improved; under Republicans it declined. I have posted those stats before. As Bill Clinton said at one of the Democratic conventions, the facts prove that "our way works better."

Of course, Democrats can't make much "progress" these days because of the fanatical, ideological opposition of Republicans. In the past, presidents could expect to get some support from the other party for their proposals, and compromises could be achieved. Not today. Did you see the chart posted here a few days ago showing approval rates by party for the presidents? Obama is the first one to have steady, completely-polarized numbers throughout his presidency. It doesn't matter what he did. Democrats approved and Republicans disapproved, by huge margins.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I would never choose one. But of those still running, probably Kasich-- who has NO chance-- is the least worst.



But war as emitting from us (rather than coming to us) is now the province of Republicans.

Rubio (along with Fiorina) is the worst war-monger of the bunch, based on his statements and his calls for a "clash of civilizations" (war on Muslims per se, not just the IS or even Muslim terrorists). Republicans today represent the militarism that used to be more-often Democratic, before and including Vietnam.

Democrats today represent war as a last resort, waged multi-laterally. Carter, Clinton and Obama have been more measured and cautious about war, and have been effective at what Carter called "waging peace." Democrats in congress have been the anti-war party most often; all 22 senators who voted against the Iraq war were Democrats, and almost entirely from blue states.

I have written Kasich off( time for more to leave the race).
My concern is that we continue to have a military strong enough to ward off most attacks. The weak Carter approach including letting Iran hold our hostages for over a year, was counterproductive in warding off attacks.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Maybe, to the extent that your "belief system" includes the notion that Church doctrine must be accepted. Otherwise, it's a fairly arbitrary line as to when a fetus is a "baby."

Why doesn't the abortion pill take the issue off the table?



If race matters in actual policy and government behavior, which it often does, then it's super-important. It's one of the defining divides in American politics throughout its history. But sure, there's other reasons people oppose Obama besides his race.



During Democratic administrations, income equality improved; under Republicans it declined. I have posted those stats before. As Bill Clinton said at one of the Democratic conventions, the facts prove that "our way works better."

Of course, Democrats can't make much "progress" these days because of the fanatical, ideological opposition of Republicans. In the past, presidents could expect to get some support from the other party for their proposals, and compromises could be achieved. Not today. Did you see the chart posted here a few days ago showing approval rates by party for the presidents? Obama is the first one to have steady, completely-polarized numbers throughout his presidency. It doesn't matter what he did. Democrats approved and Republicans disapproved, by huge margins.

The abortion pill is available, but there are still many abortions.

I would like to see your stats again. The last thing I saw several months back showed a constant increase in wealth disparity over last 20 years.

Originally Posted by Odin

I was listening to public radio at work this morning and they were talking about a black woman in Texas who was pulled over, arrested, and died in the county jail of what the police claimed was suicide. The official police report claimed the woman was being physically and verbally abusive to the officer but the recording she had made during the encounter shows that she was just politely asking why she was pulled over and the police officer screamed at her with pure rage to shut up and obey his orders. The implication is that the "suicide" was actually murder by police officers enraged by a black woman daring to not blindly obey them.

The Sandra Bland case is old news. It was investigated and ruled a suicide.

Originally Posted by radind

The abortion pill is available, but there are still many abortions.

It should be made more available as an alternative.

I would like to see your stats again. The last thing I saw several months back showed a constant increase in wealth disparity over last 20 years.

Maybe later. Gotta go now.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

The Sandra Bland case is old news. It was investigated and ruled a suicide.

Nevertheless, the behavior of the officer was reprehensible, and so was her treatment in prison.