The cynic in me can't help but notice that all these platforms are suddenly growing a backbone now that we know Democrats will control both the executive and legislative branches.
Nothing imo. Before it was probable that there could be careers and jobs outside of the presidency. With these moves it seems like Trump decided to make his bed with the worst of his base and a lot of people have finally decided that it's a bridge too far. Last-minute attempts to distance themselves after playing along the entire time.
They will be standing right there to fill key cabinet roles for the next Republican administration.
(365-14)/365 = 0.9616...In her case a bigger factor is probably that Trump has also fallen off the grace of a lot of Republicans. The guy is done. He's still massively popular and a threat given his popularity amongst pretty fanatical groups of people, but as far as raw, democratic power he lost his election by a pretty decent margin, and lost the House/Senate for Republicans.
A lot of people who sucked up to him and his rhetoric must be realizing it's time to suck up to someone/something else. He's always attracted an uncomfortable amount of media attention and now that he can't attract political power to remain in office he's a liability rather than an asset.
Going after Trump fans is just center-left back-slapping, and all the worse because ignoring the police partisanship is extremely reckless and irresponsible.
Our civil liberates will continue erode for no good reason, and our institutions will be no safer. Replace the police with something else they're not afraid to hold accountable. If there is to be a monopoly of violence, it must be held only in (small d) democratic authority.
Have you not seen the videos of officers swarmed and overwhelmed, being attacked and beaten?
Are you saying the police pulled a "false flag" on themselves? Seems like a Trumpist argument.
No, what happened was the Senators called Maryland Gov Larry Hogan who has command of the MD National Guard. He mobilized his troops but he needed permission from the Pentagon to move them into DC. He didn't receive authorization for over an hour while the Capitol was being overrun.
This is a separate issue from Mike Pence. This isn't about Pence vs. Senators; the question there is why wasn't Trump the one to make the call? Where was he in all of this in defending the Capitol. Reports are that he was reveling in the chaos, and making calls to Republican senators to lobby them to take more time and raise objections to the electoral certificates.
Police on the ground were overwhelmed. Congress was asking for help. Rioters that were screaming stuff like "Hang mike pence" got to within a hundred feet of the the vast majority of the leaders of our country. Local governors asked permission to intervene from the man that incited it all - whose political opponents rioters were bearing down upon. Permission that was denied.
The more I think about it the more fucked up it all is. January 6th could have been fucking devastating for the country. And lots of people don't seem to really give a shit. We're one step removed from a banana republic.
Lol
I suppose having positive ESG profile is still an interest. So your statement stands.
Now an interesting consideration, for both supporters and Donald Trump himself. What happens if he is effectively locked out of all the big social media sites? Does a site which lets him on suddenly catapult to the top or does it get shouted down by pressure originating from the users who are on the sites which locked him and his supporters out?
I mean we are in a unique situation where by a very public official is being locked out of his accounts because of his actions and his supporters are being similarly locked out. That has never happened before and its both awe inspiring and frightening all at once.
Him bringing EC faith into the open, actually hurts GOP for decades if the EC is removed, they'll never win again. It's been a very very long time since GOP has won popular vote. Their entire future rides or dies on the E.C. unless they can become a big tent party, and regain people who have left the party.
A first generation American is no less American than a 4th generation American and an overwhelming majority of us are the children of immigrants if you go back far enough.
I'm not sure what your point is in arguing that all Americans are equally American, whatever that means.
These accusations are belittling and removing agency from people on multiple levels by saying democrats import immigrants, that immigrants who become citizens shouldn't have a say in how this country is governed, and that immigrants vote for democrats for any reason beyond their political policies.
How does it remove agency from immigrants to point out that, as a group, they have tended to vote for one party over another, and to speculate that said tendency will continue in the future?
I'm not really understanding your point, I think.
The idea that democrats are somehow acting nefariously for adjusting their policy to meet the demands of the citizenry is sounds completely asinine? What do you think democracy is? Republicans lost because they have bad policy. Complaining that the winning side acted in bad faith for listening to their citizenry is anti-democratic. If you think citizens shouldn't be listened to, then why not just skip to authoritarianism?
I'm not sure who or what you are arguing against. I haven't seen anyone suggest immigrants were coerced in any way, or that they vote democrat for any reason other than preferring their policies.
>The idea that democrats are somehow acting nefariously for adjusting their policy to meet the demands of the citizenry is sounds completely asinine?
The "nefarious" behavior alleged in this comment thread is bringing in immigrants because they know they'll vote overwhelmingly democrat once they can vote (and same goes for their children, who would not have been born in the US if their parents had not been allowed in).
And some of the most rabid Trump supporters are recent immigrants (cf the Epoch Times' role in the last years, or the fact that one of the arrested Capitol rioters, Yevgenya Malimon, mother of an Oregon Republican party official, needed a Russian interpreter at her arraignment).
Think of other right wing voices in the US: Peter Thiel (first generation immigrant), Ron Unz (second generation), Roosh V (second generation).
Meanwhile, one of the key demographics for Biden's win in Arizona was high turnout among — Native Americans, the Final Boss of non-immigrants.
They seem pretty reasonable to me, having looked at the numbers.
The Cuban community is the only community of fairly recent immigrants of which I'm aware that doesn't reliably vote for democrats, on the whole. Outside of Florida, their votes do not make Hispanic votes in general swing toward republicans.
Hispanic votes for republicans may have increased this year, but they are still absolutely nowhere near 50/50.
My understanding of the Epoch Times is that it's run by anti-CCP Chinese, and not very representative of Asians in general.
Listing single individuals is not relevant when the topic is how a community votes.
Vietnamese Americans tend to vote Republican as well, and until the Trump era, so did Filipino Americans: https://asiamattersforamerica.org/articles/key-statistics-on...
> Hispanic votes for republicans may have increased this year, but they are still absolutely nowhere near 50/50.
Sure, but I find it remarkable that they increased vote share AT ALL while running on a fairly explicitly anti-Hispanic immigration platform.
> My understanding of the Epoch Times is that it's [...] not very representative of Asians in general.
But apparently quite influential in some language communities.
I'm not arguing that recent immigrants do not, overall, predominantly vote Democratic. But I think that behavior is not nearly as immutable as this discussion suggests. Many immigrants (a) come to the US in search of economic opportunities and (b) have somewhat more conservative personal values than their US-born peers. So they should be quite amenable to some flavors of Republicanism.