Comment on Elections Have Consequences
Objection@lemmy.ml 1 day agoHe basically said the government doesn’t need to get involved.
That’s literally what the Democrats were saying in “Woke 1.”
Comment on Elections Have Consequences
Objection@lemmy.ml 1 day agoHe basically said the government doesn’t need to get involved.
That’s literally what the Democrats were saying in “Woke 1.”
danc4498@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I don’t know what “woke 1” is
Objection@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
The time we’re discussing when the Democrats were supposedly “too woke.”
danc4498@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I didn’t want to have to google, but you made me. This article seems to be saying many things I am saying. Democrats went to far being “woke” and have chilled out some.
archive.ph/FLtUR
Objection@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
Christ, finally. The amount I have to twist people’s arms on this website to do the most basic homework to support their positions. It’s completely ridiculous.
That article is very scant on details and specifics. It mentions “defund the police,” which was mostly a slogan used by activists rather than the party, and which, as the article mentions (and as I mentioned previously) never actually went anywhere and was walked back, with Biden calling specifically to “fund the police” and with many places raising police budgets instead. In spite of this, there was a perception that Democrats actually did defund the police. Not the reality.
It doesn’t really talk about democrat’s positions on trans rights at all. It mentions #MeToo, and one random state assemblywoman who talked about cancelling Thanksgiving.
My whole point is not that there was no perception of the Democrats being woke, but that it was just a perception. Nothing in that article actually challenges that. It just quotes other people who had that perception. You can say, “politics is about feelings and perceptions” but all that makes me think of is how Republicans “felt like” Obama turned the country into a socialist republic.
Here is a Ballotpedia page for Hillary Clinton’s stances on LGBT rights in 2016. I would love to know which parts of it are “particularly pro-trans” rather than just keeping the government out of trans people’s business and ensuring equal protection under the law.