The New Gilded Age: Income Inequality in the U.S.

[JA]

The new gilded age: Income inequality in the U.S. by state, metropolitan area, and county

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

If the Democrats, nationwide, focused on THIS issue like a laser, they'd win, and they'd become the majority party.  Of course, they'll be resistance from contributors on this issue, whereas if we make the 2020 election a referendum on where we go to the bathroom, whether or not a female Yuppie from Scarsdale has a fair shot at a corner office at her brokerage firm, or whether or not we will publicly fund abortions on Medicaid, the corporate case will continue to flow to Dems (though not the votes).

[BudgieForce]

If the Democrats, nationwide, focused on THIS issue like a laser, they'd win, and they'd become the majority party.  Of course, they'll be resistance from contributors on this issue, whereas if we make the 2020 election a referendum on where we go to the bathroom, whether or not a female Yuppie from Scarsdale has a fair shot at a corner office at her brokerage firm, or whether or not we will publicly fund abortions on Medicaid, the corporate case will continue to flow to Dems (though not the votes).

I'd rather Democrats lose than capitulate to Republicans on social issues.

[mvd10]

If the Democrats, nationwide, focused on THIS issue like a laser, they'd win, and they'd become the majority party.  Of course, they'll be resistance from contributors on this issue, whereas if we make the 2020 election a referendum on where we go to the bathroom, whether or not a female Yuppie from Scarsdale has a fair shot at a corner office at her brokerage firm, or whether or not we will publicly fund abortions on Medicaid, the corporate case will continue to flow to Dems (though not the votes).

Well, some of these are legitimate issues obviously. I don't think focusing on women's rights or things like that would really hurt them, it really depends on how they phrase it. Most of the corporate money would probably go to the downballot GOP candidates tbh. Or maybe it would go to the Democrats if Wall Street feels like the Democrat will win in a landslide. Deep down these people are Republicans, but they're pragmatic enough to back whoever they think is going to win unless that person is really antagonistic towards their goals (see Obama 2008 and Hillary 2016 for the first, Obama 2012 for the second).

But I think the best course for the Democrats would be to largely shy away from fringe positions on identity issues and radical/unworkable proposals. Keep it simple. Support women's rights and fight against discrimination in the workforce (face it, it's their base), slam Trump's tax cuts and deregulation, focus on practical things that actually help people like EITC expansion and expanding healthcare. But keep away from stupid slogans like 'the future is female', fully open borders or radical economic proposals like a federal jobs guarantee. Trump is loathed by 55% of Americans, 2020 is a chance for the Democrats to make huge inroads in both the traditional Republican suburbs and the working class towns that voted Trump.

[ON Progressive]

If the Democrats, nationwide, focused on THIS issue like a laser, they'd win, and they'd become the majority party.  Of course, they'll be resistance from contributors on this issue, whereas if we make the 2020 election a referendum on where we go to the bathroom, whether or not a female Yuppie from Scarsdale has a fair shot at a corner office at her brokerage firm, or whether or not we will publicly fund abortions on Medicaid, the corporate case will continue to flow to Dems (though not the votes).

Being fiscally liberal and socially conservative is a contradiction as much as fiscally conservative/social liberal is. Fiscal issues and social issues are deeply intertwined. There's no economic justice without social justice, and no social justice without economic justice.

Why? Because social issues disproportionately impact the poorest people in society. Social liberalism has the biggest effects on groups which have disadvantages in society for being who they are such as women, gay people, disabled people, among others. These people tend to be poorer than average because of discrimination that social conservatism not only tolerates, but outright endorses.

[dead0man]

It's interesting that the "Why it matters" paragraph never once gets even close to saying why it matters.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

If the Democrats, nationwide, focused on THIS issue like a laser, they'd win, and they'd become the majority party.  Of course, they'll be resistance from contributors on this issue, whereas if we make the 2020 election a referendum on where we go to the bathroom, whether or not a female Yuppie from Scarsdale has a fair shot at a corner office at her brokerage firm, or whether or not we will publicly fund abortions on Medicaid, the corporate case will continue to flow to Dems (though not the votes).

Being fiscally liberal and socially conservative is a contradiction as much as fiscally conservative/social liberal is. Fiscal issues and social issues are deeply intertwined. There's no economic justice without social justice, and no social justice without economic justice.

Why? Because social issues disproportionately impact the poorest people in society. Social liberalism has the biggest effects on groups which have disadvantages in society for being who they are such as women, gay people, disabled people, among others. These people tend to be poorer than average because of discrimination that social conservatism not only tolerates, but outright endorses.

Abortion is not social justice; it is infanticide.

[Very Legal & Very Cool]

If the Democrats, nationwide, focused on THIS issue like a laser, they'd win, and they'd become the majority party.  Of course, they'll be resistance from contributors on this issue, whereas if we make the 2020 election a referendum on where we go to the bathroom, whether or not a female Yuppie from Scarsdale has a fair shot at a corner office at her brokerage firm, or whether or not we will publicly fund abortions on Medicaid, the corporate case will continue to flow to Dems (though not the votes).

Being fiscally liberal and socially conservative is a contradiction as much as fiscally conservative/social liberal is. Fiscal issues and social issues are deeply intertwined. There's no economic justice without social justice, and no social justice without economic justice.

Why? Because social issues disproportionately impact the poorest people in society. Social liberalism has the biggest effects on groups which have disadvantages in society for being who they are such as women, gay people, disabled people, among others. These people tend to be poorer than average because of discrimination that social conservatism not only tolerates, but outright endorses.

Abortion is not social justice; it is infanticide.

in·fan·ti·cide
inˈfan(t)əˌsīd/Submit
noun
1.
the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.

[Perlen vor den Schweinen]

If the Democrats, nationwide, focused on THIS issue like a laser, they'd win, and they'd become the majority party.  Of course, they'll be resistance from contributors on this issue, whereas if we make the 2020 election a referendum on where we go to the bathroom, whether or not a female Yuppie from Scarsdale has a fair shot at a corner office at her brokerage firm, or whether or not we will publicly fund abortions on Medicaid, the corporate case will continue to flow to Dems (though not the votes).

Being fiscally liberal and socially conservative is a contradiction as much as fiscally conservative/social liberal is. Fiscal issues and social issues are deeply intertwined. There's no economic justice without social justice, and no social justice without economic justice.

Why? Because social issues disproportionately impact the poorest people in society. Social liberalism has the biggest effects on groups which have disadvantages in society for being who they are such as women, gay people, disabled people, among others. These people tend to be poorer than average because of discrimination that social conservatism not only tolerates, but outright endorses.

Abortion is not social justice; it is infanticide.

in·fan·ti·cide
inˈfan(t)əˌsīd/Submit
noun
1.
the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.

To be honest, with that definition, you are proving his point. It all depends on when you consider a person to become a person in the womb.

[Very Legal & Very Cool]

If the Democrats, nationwide, focused on THIS issue like a laser, they'd win, and they'd become the majority party.  Of course, they'll be resistance from contributors on this issue, whereas if we make the 2020 election a referendum on where we go to the bathroom, whether or not a female Yuppie from Scarsdale has a fair shot at a corner office at her brokerage firm, or whether or not we will publicly fund abortions on Medicaid, the corporate case will continue to flow to Dems (though not the votes).

Being fiscally liberal and socially conservative is a contradiction as much as fiscally conservative/social liberal is. Fiscal issues and social issues are deeply intertwined. There's no economic justice without social justice, and no social justice without economic justice.

Why? Because social issues disproportionately impact the poorest people in society. Social liberalism has the biggest effects on groups which have disadvantages in society for being who they are such as women, gay people, disabled people, among others. These people tend to be poorer than average because of discrimination that social conservatism not only tolerates, but outright endorses.

Abortion is not social justice; it is infanticide.

in·fan·ti·cide
inˈfan(t)əˌsīd/Submit
noun
1.
the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.

To be honest, with that definition, you are proving his point. It all depends on when you consider a person to become a person in the womb.

It says within year of birth, not prior to birth.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

If the Democrats, nationwide, focused on THIS issue like a laser, they'd win, and they'd become the majority party.  Of course, they'll be resistance from contributors on this issue, whereas if we make the 2020 election a referendum on where we go to the bathroom, whether or not a female Yuppie from Scarsdale has a fair shot at a corner office at her brokerage firm, or whether or not we will publicly fund abortions on Medicaid, the corporate case will continue to flow to Dems (though not the votes).

Being fiscally liberal and socially conservative is a contradiction as much as fiscally conservative/social liberal is. Fiscal issues and social issues are deeply intertwined. There's no economic justice without social justice, and no social justice without economic justice.

Why? Because social issues disproportionately impact the poorest people in society. Social liberalism has the biggest effects on groups which have disadvantages in society for being who they are such as women, gay people, disabled people, among others. These people tend to be poorer than average because of discrimination that social conservatism not only tolerates, but outright endorses.

Abortion is not social justice; it is infanticide.

in·fan·ti·cide
inˈfan(t)əˌsīd/Submit
noun
1.
the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.

To be honest, with that definition, you are proving his point. It all depends on when you consider a person to become a person in the womb.

It says within year of birth, not prior to birth.

I'm more concerned with what God thinks than I am with other posters on Atlas when it comes to this issue.

[ON Progressive]

If the Democrats, nationwide, focused on THIS issue like a laser, they'd win, and they'd become the majority party.  Of course, they'll be resistance from contributors on this issue, whereas if we make the 2020 election a referendum on where we go to the bathroom, whether or not a female Yuppie from Scarsdale has a fair shot at a corner office at her brokerage firm, or whether or not we will publicly fund abortions on Medicaid, the corporate case will continue to flow to Dems (though not the votes).

Being fiscally liberal and socially conservative is a contradiction as much as fiscally conservative/social liberal is. Fiscal issues and social issues are deeply intertwined. There's no economic justice without social justice, and no social justice without economic justice.

Why? Because social issues disproportionately impact the poorest people in society. Social liberalism has the biggest effects on groups which have disadvantages in society for being who they are such as women, gay people, disabled people, among others. These people tend to be poorer than average because of discrimination that social conservatism not only tolerates, but outright endorses.

Abortion is not social justice; it is infanticide.

in·fan·ti·cide
inˈfan(t)əˌsīd/Submit
noun
1.
the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.

To be honest, with that definition, you are proving his point. It all depends on when you consider a person to become a person in the womb.

It says within year of birth, not prior to birth.

I'm more concerned with what God thinks than I am with other posters on Atlas when it comes to this issue.

The amount of times the Bible mentions abortion is zero.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If the Democrats, nationwide, focused on THIS issue like a laser, they'd win, and they'd become the majority party.  Of course, they'll be resistance from contributors on this issue, whereas if we make the 2020 election a referendum on where we go to the bathroom, whether or not a female Yuppie from Scarsdale has a fair shot at a corner office at her brokerage firm, or whether or not we will publicly fund abortions on Medicaid, the corporate case will continue to flow to Dems (though not the votes).

I'd rather Democrats lose than capitulate to Republicans on social issues.

Your establishment Democrats suck on social issues as well.

[Very Legal & Very Cool]

If the Democrats, nationwide, focused on THIS issue like a laser, they'd win, and they'd become the majority party.  Of course, they'll be resistance from contributors on this issue, whereas if we make the 2020 election a referendum on where we go to the bathroom, whether or not a female Yuppie from Scarsdale has a fair shot at a corner office at her brokerage firm, or whether or not we will publicly fund abortions on Medicaid, the corporate case will continue to flow to Dems (though not the votes).

Being fiscally liberal and socially conservative is a contradiction as much as fiscally conservative/social liberal is. Fiscal issues and social issues are deeply intertwined. There's no economic justice without social justice, and no social justice without economic justice.

Why? Because social issues disproportionately impact the poorest people in society. Social liberalism has the biggest effects on groups which have disadvantages in society for being who they are such as women, gay people, disabled people, among others. These people tend to be poorer than average because of discrimination that social conservatism not only tolerates, but outright endorses.

Abortion is not social justice; it is infanticide.

in·fan·ti·cide
inˈfan(t)əˌsīd/Submit
noun
1.
the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.

To be honest, with that definition, you are proving his point. It all depends on when you consider a person to become a person in the womb.

It says within year of birth, not prior to birth.

I'm more concerned with what God thinks than I am with other posters on Atlas when it comes to this issue.

If you're reading the mind of a supposedly omnipotent being, what does that make you? A witch or some sort of false idol, presumably.

[GlobeSoc]

If the Democrats, nationwide, focused on THIS issue like a laser, they'd win, and they'd become the majority party.  Of course, they'll be resistance from contributors on this issue, whereas if we make the 2020 election a referendum on where we go to the bathroom, whether or not a female Yuppie from Scarsdale has a fair shot at a corner office at her brokerage firm, or whether or not we will publicly fund abortions on Medicaid, the corporate case will continue to flow to Dems (though not the votes).

Being fiscally liberal and socially conservative is a contradiction as much as fiscally conservative/social liberal is. Fiscal issues and social issues are deeply intertwined. There's no economic justice without social justice, and no social justice without economic justice.

Why? Because social issues disproportionately impact the poorest people in society. Social liberalism has the biggest effects on groups which have disadvantages in society for being who they are such as women, gay people, disabled people, among others. These people tend to be poorer than average because of discrimination that social conservatism not only tolerates, but outright endorses.

Abortion is not social justice; it is infanticide.

in·fan·ti·cide
inˈfan(t)əˌsīd/Submit
noun
1.
the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.

To be honest, with that definition, you are proving his point. It all depends on when you consider a person to become a person in the womb.

It says within year of birth, not prior to birth.

I'm more concerned with what God thinks than I am with other posters on Atlas when it comes to this issue.

The amount of times the Bible mentions abortion is zero.

B I T T E R W A T E R

[cvparty]

let's stop debating about abortion