NielsBohron

I'll tell you what; when I see the term used by an elected official or GOP voter to mean something besides a dog-whistle, I'll be on your side here.

Until then, when someone uses "fiscal conservatism" to tell me they're voting Republican, I'm going to continue to believe that they're ok with the rest of the GOP's racist, homophobic, misogynistic platform, too.

When people tell you who they are, believe them. And don't let them off the hook when they claim they're "fiscally conservative"

That's the one, thank you.

Me too. And then Bill Clinton gave them balanced budgets and they still hated him and his economic policies, and I never really understood why until I realized it was because he wasn't "hurting the right people"

You're missing my point, at least partially. Even going back all the way to Reagan years (and certainly for Romney) "fiscal conservatism" was not actually about the economy or saving money; it was always about cutting social safety net programs that help minorities while enriching the elites (especially defense contractors and banks).

It's a convenient piece of fiction that allows people to vote for conservatives who pass hateful legislation while claiming to be "not a racist," but fiscal conservatism in the US is and always has been racist. If we want to see any change, we need to start forcing the media outlets and "fiscal conservatives" to say the quiet part out loud instead of getting away with claiming they are "not racist but..."

Why are they still claiming "fiscal conservatism" is anything more than racism and class warfare by a different name? Why are conservatives "stronger on economy?" Of course this is causing divides about morals; a vote for the GOP is a vote for oppression and hate.

This bullshit dog-whistling by the media has to stop or we're just letting 70+ million American voters off the hook by letting them claim "but I'm just worried about the economy."

edit: I can't find the source right now, but there's a quote about this. I'm paraphrasing, but it goes something like "historians have a term they use for a person who voted for Hitler because they liked his economic policies. That term is 'Nazi'"

🪡👍!

🪡👍!

🪡👍!

Candlesticks in the dark, visions of bodies being burned

Not for the first round of appointments in 2017. Tillerson, Pruitt, Ajit Pai, DeVos, etc. were all industry insiders with their own harmful agendas who resigned as soon as they gutted whatever specific parts of their agencies they wanted.

So, frankly, yes men are probably less harmful.

That's all well and good, but are you really suggesting that trans people who are fearing for their lives should stay put to help the electoral college issues four years from now?

If there is a benevolent God, then this is the shit that could convince me that they might exist

Achh, good point. I'd forgotten about that

Even better is the fact that Trump's Secret Service detail would likely be... shall we say "less than motivated" to protect their charge