Passage of legislation by milquetoast liberals, as in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that yielded resounding progress?
How about Liberal-appointed justices paving the way for Same Sex Marriage?
If Liberal governments crafting diplomatic agreements like JCPOA to avoid war, or joining international pacts to try to address climate change like the Paris Climate Agreement?
If both sides same why historically has only one side paved the way of progress, even if slowly?
To others reading this: just remember anyone asserting both sides are the same are Trump supporters, whether they realize it or not. It’s no different than the 1 nazi at a table thing.
Civil rights legislation was passed because of riots in the streets, not voting. Black people had a maximum of 25% voter turnout and in most states it was 10% or less. And civil rights were advanced under both a Democrat and Republican administration. And when the Nixon administration came up with the idea of disenfranchising black people by criminalizing drug use and making it a felony, the Democrats are the ones who wrote and passed the laws. And they never stopped over criminalizing black folks. They were doing it right up to the Clinton administration. Overtly racist policing and incarceration. Because voting in Ds isn’t actually what changed anything - forcing the issue in the streets is what changed it.
The Obama administration crafting the JCPOA was the equivalent of a stalling tactic. Obama had to focus on the drone wars, on Libya, and on the pivot to Asia. While the bipartisan consensus was to destroy Iran after Libya (as set in the strategy under Bush2), there wasn’t an opportunity because China’s rise created a pacing challenge that the US needed to meet and Obama had to send almost 70% of our naval assets into the Pacific.
No, liberal justices didn’t pave the way for same-sex marriage. Rioters did. Nothing happened until Stonewall. Democrats were happy to throw queer folk under the bus, same as they do today, and watch them get murdered in the street. But when they actually fought back in NYC, that’s when the pressure built and the establishment needed to react.
It’s always been this way. Improvements happen when the oppressed fight back, outside the ballot box. The labor movement had to do it, women’s Suffrage had to do it, civil rights had to do it, gay rights had to do it, Haiti had to do it, Russia had to do it, China had to do it, Cuba had to do it. It’s the only thing the power structure responds to.
And that’s been proven by research from Princeton by the way. Popular opinion has literally no statistical influence on legislation across 30 years of study, which spans both parties in multiple configurations.
Again all that is beside the point. You’re noting the broader coalition pushed for this – and yet – the actual people for whom the broader coalition voted into power in Congress and successfully passed the legislation were, in fact milquetoast liberals who pulled the lever for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If it was won in the streets, then why did the conservatives NOT vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but the Liberals did… ? How curious.
Anything that stalls war and murder is good.
Yes, liberals definitely paved the way. The justices liberals appointed factually voted in support of same-sex marriage. All who supported Obergefell v. Hodges except Anthony Kennedy were appointed by Liberal Democrats, fun fact
Naturally, civics is important and expressing your 1A rights are very important! Movements are dynamic, no dispute there. But at the end of the day, all these movements in the USA had one thing in common that led to these milestones: They voted for the Liberal, who reformed the law.
I have my major grievances with the Democratic party, but they are irrefutably better and throughout history (when acting as the liberal coalition and not conservatives pre-Southern Strategy), have been the bringers of progress, slow though it may be.
That’s why I am proudly voting Democrat all the way down my ballot for these midterm elections for Congressional control that are the very first chance to put brakes on the fascist Trump regime. In doing so, in this user’s words, we can “stall” and slow down and give people a chance to respond!
Also, everyone check your upcoming No King’s Protests!
“milquetoast liberals” who literally immediately set about working on how to undo the impact of civil rights legislation by launching the drug war, establishing the southern strategy and then triangulation, and then drove head first into racial mass incarceration?
Like, listen to what we’re saying. You think it was voting in liberals that got the legislation passed. I think liberals happened to be in charge when the rioting strategy got strong enough to demand a response. My evidence? A D president and an R president both had to capitulate, and an R president and a D legislature both worked to build the next structure of criminalizing blackness together after passing civil rights legislation.
To me, that says the party doesn’t matter at all because both parties operated in both sides of power system, giving concessions and setting up the next disenfranchisement fight because, fundamentally, they were collaborating the whole way and continue to do so.
The person you’re replying to thinks that America should continue funding Israel’s Iron Dome because children might get hurt there, just an FYI. He’s a peak liberal.
How has any major structural injustice in any society ever get solved?
Passage of legislation by milquetoast liberals, as in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that yielded resounding progress?
How about Liberal-appointed justices paving the way for Same Sex Marriage?
If Liberal governments crafting diplomatic agreements like JCPOA to avoid war, or joining international pacts to try to address climate change like the Paris Climate Agreement?
If both sides same why historically has only one side paved the way of progress, even if slowly?
To others reading this: just remember anyone asserting both sides are the same are Trump supporters, whether they realize it or not. It’s no different than the 1 nazi at a table thing.
Civil rights legislation was passed because of riots in the streets, not voting. Black people had a maximum of 25% voter turnout and in most states it was 10% or less. And civil rights were advanced under both a Democrat and Republican administration. And when the Nixon administration came up with the idea of disenfranchising black people by criminalizing drug use and making it a felony, the Democrats are the ones who wrote and passed the laws. And they never stopped over criminalizing black folks. They were doing it right up to the Clinton administration. Overtly racist policing and incarceration. Because voting in Ds isn’t actually what changed anything - forcing the issue in the streets is what changed it.
The Obama administration crafting the JCPOA was the equivalent of a stalling tactic. Obama had to focus on the drone wars, on Libya, and on the pivot to Asia. While the bipartisan consensus was to destroy Iran after Libya (as set in the strategy under Bush2), there wasn’t an opportunity because China’s rise created a pacing challenge that the US needed to meet and Obama had to send almost 70% of our naval assets into the Pacific.
No, liberal justices didn’t pave the way for same-sex marriage. Rioters did. Nothing happened until Stonewall. Democrats were happy to throw queer folk under the bus, same as they do today, and watch them get murdered in the street. But when they actually fought back in NYC, that’s when the pressure built and the establishment needed to react.
It’s always been this way. Improvements happen when the oppressed fight back, outside the ballot box. The labor movement had to do it, women’s Suffrage had to do it, civil rights had to do it, gay rights had to do it, Haiti had to do it, Russia had to do it, China had to do it, Cuba had to do it. It’s the only thing the power structure responds to.
And that’s been proven by research from Princeton by the way. Popular opinion has literally no statistical influence on legislation across 30 years of study, which spans both parties in multiple configurations.
Again all that is beside the point. You’re noting the broader coalition pushed for this – and yet – the actual people for whom the broader coalition voted into power in Congress and successfully passed the legislation were, in fact milquetoast liberals who pulled the lever for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If it was won in the streets, then why did the conservatives NOT vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but the Liberals did… ? How curious.
Anything that stalls war and murder is good.
Yes, liberals definitely paved the way. The justices liberals appointed factually voted in support of same-sex marriage. All who supported Obergefell v. Hodges except Anthony Kennedy were appointed by Liberal Democrats, fun fact
Naturally, civics is important and expressing your 1A rights are very important! Movements are dynamic, no dispute there. But at the end of the day, all these movements in the USA had one thing in common that led to these milestones: They voted for the Liberal, who reformed the law.
I have my major grievances with the Democratic party, but they are irrefutably better and throughout history (when acting as the liberal coalition and not conservatives pre-Southern Strategy), have been the bringers of progress, slow though it may be.
That’s why I am proudly voting Democrat all the way down my ballot for these midterm elections for Congressional control that are the very first chance to put brakes on the fascist Trump regime. In doing so, in this user’s words, we can “stall” and slow down and give people a chance to respond!
Also, everyone check your upcoming No King’s Protests!
“milquetoast liberals” who literally immediately set about working on how to undo the impact of civil rights legislation by launching the drug war, establishing the southern strategy and then triangulation, and then drove head first into racial mass incarceration?
Like, listen to what we’re saying. You think it was voting in liberals that got the legislation passed. I think liberals happened to be in charge when the rioting strategy got strong enough to demand a response. My evidence? A D president and an R president both had to capitulate, and an R president and a D legislature both worked to build the next structure of criminalizing blackness together after passing civil rights legislation.
To me, that says the party doesn’t matter at all because both parties operated in both sides of power system, giving concessions and setting up the next disenfranchisement fight because, fundamentally, they were collaborating the whole way and continue to do so.
The person you’re replying to thinks that America should continue funding Israel’s Iron Dome because children might get hurt there, just an FYI. He’s a peak liberal.