“Trump does not want people to know about the entire vanguard of extremist weirdos around him—and what their plans are when he governs,” says Chris Hayes on voters finding out about the far-right agenda that is Project 2025.
Regressives only give to people selectively. The statement above reminds me of the Sikh family that moved to my hometown in the early 80’s when I was a kid. They came to take over a gas station that one of their family members had recently bought. They were the only sikh in town. All kinds of names thrown at them like towel heads, sand n*****r and so on. A unofficial but damn near complete boycott of the gas station commenced. Their kids were treated like shit at school by nearly everyone bar the Catholics who were mostly Hispanic. I was eye witness to that part. The station was not making enough money and rather than ask their family for help they finally reached out for help feeding their kids to a local food bank that was christian in everything but name but were rejected. They however stuck it out and finally after thirty years or so sold it to a regressive couple who promptly ran it into the ground after embezzling lottery money.
The only family from India who owned both motels were treated fairly well, to their face at least.
Which usually includes implied “follow my religious beliefs to be eligible.” A big difference between personal giving and allowing a social safety net is the decision to limit who gets your money. Which I do get; I want my team dollars going to stuff that helps everyone, like welfare, education, transportation, etc, not to military industrial complex or subsidies for already massive and union busting billionaires.
Still, on the conservative side it tends to aim more towards extremely limited targets, usually filtered through a lens of bigotry.
there’s a pretty big difference between what you are saying, “i don’t like the way they help”, and what the person i responded to was saying, “they don’t help and hate the poor”.
conservatives help the poor by personal, direct giving. there’s lots of data on charitable giving broken down by party affiliation.
Regressives only give to people selectively. The statement above reminds me of the Sikh family that moved to my hometown in the early 80’s when I was a kid. They came to take over a gas station that one of their family members had recently bought. They were the only sikh in town. All kinds of names thrown at them like towel heads, sand n*****r and so on. A unofficial but damn near complete boycott of the gas station commenced. Their kids were treated like shit at school by nearly everyone bar the Catholics who were mostly Hispanic. I was eye witness to that part. The station was not making enough money and rather than ask their family for help they finally reached out for help feeding their kids to a local food bank that was christian in everything but name but were rejected. They however stuck it out and finally after thirty years or so sold it to a regressive couple who promptly ran it into the ground after embezzling lottery money.
The only family from India who owned both motels were treated fairly well, to their face at least.
So go on tell me how giving regressives are.
Which usually includes implied “follow my religious beliefs to be eligible.” A big difference between personal giving and allowing a social safety net is the decision to limit who gets your money. Which I do get; I want my team dollars going to stuff that helps everyone, like welfare, education, transportation, etc, not to military industrial complex or subsidies for already massive and union busting billionaires.
Still, on the conservative side it tends to aim more towards extremely limited targets, usually filtered through a lens of bigotry.
Reminds me of that early South Park episode with Starvin Marvin. “Open your bibles, everyone…Bible = Food!”
there’s a pretty big difference between what you are saying, “i don’t like the way they help”, and what the person i responded to was saying, “they don’t help and hate the poor”.