You can be cynical about us bringing in the ACLU, but in the words of Maya Angelou: “Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
Another factor is to consider framing: you can view this cynically as "only getting involved when it might impact their bottom line", or more favorably in that "it was bad before, but now it's finally hit their breaking point." I prefer to reduce my cynicism as much as possible, giving people the benefit of the doubt. It's also good for my overall happiness.
In that case, I fully expect to see continued activity on this front even after the next Democratic adminstration and congress continues the Bush-Obama-Trump programs that are (finally) meeting resistance.
I won't hold my breath waiting for that, though. Usually what happens is that when one's favored party regains power the criticism suddenly disappears.
Yes, Obama did some bad stuff, and organizations like the ACLU and EFF did push back on it — you can Google "ACLU slams Obama" for a few examples — but Trump is shaping up to be way past the norm, so you shouldn't expect just a normal amount of resistance.
The only thing "past the norm" here is that Trump isn't hiding behind "the process" or rhetoric. All of the stuff Trump is doing had been either set up by or done, before, by past administrations. It's just that there hasn't been this level of scrutiny or opposition to it.
No, much of it hasn't been done by past administrations, which is why whenever someone tries to trot out a supposed concrete example, it's usually a wildly different act than the one Trump did that is supposedly similar to, either in substance or relevant context or, most often, both.
My description is a rebuttal of an "all" claim, and is expressly a "much" not an "all" claim itself. So that not all Trump acts.meet it is acknowledged from the beginning and not relevant to its accuracy or its point.
The things that are receiving the heavy protests, however, are the things that do match it.
I wasn't calling out the ACLU. I am rather skeptical of the commitment of certain folks who are just now finding their voice.
This is from long experience, at least on the left end of the pond, where the mainstream Democratic partisans attempt to shout down any protest when Democratic politicians do something but encourage it when Republicans do equivalent things.
As with most such sayings their relevance isn't universal.
You should care, as should anyone who is aligned with these protestors' views. That's because if (or when, if history is a guide) the protests subside because "we elected not-Trump/Democrat-X/whatever", the gains will be eroded or erased as Trump's policies are continued by the new "savior."
Well, we're not there now, so the best we can do is do what we can do now, and promise ourselves to do what we can then. Maybe we will, maybe we'll fail, but there's literally nothing we can do about that now, so why let cynicism about a potential future erode our resolve to do what is right now?
It isn't cynicism about a potential future. It's recognition of a pattern that has played out time and again. This isn't new or uncharted territory here.
The problem is that as soon as a democrat gets elected to president, these "supporters" will disappear because it is "their" candidate bombing brown people or attacking your rights.
You need to stop, just for a second, and not look at this as a Democrat/Republican thing. When you have tens of thousands of people protesting it in countries outside the US (massive protests in London and around the UK yesterday) it's clearly beyond partisan politics and just about the issue. It's not red vs blue and it's certainly not left vs right considering our right is only about as right as your left.
I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican, and don't view it through that lense. I'm viewing this (support for the ACLU) with a skeptical eye, the same way I'd view a Trump protest started by Hillary campaign staffers.
I like what New Story is doing. I was born in Haiti. But I'm asking about San Francisco. Seems like a lot of companies talk about helping poor countries, but here in America it's a different thing. Living in a different country you would think homelessness is non-existent in America.
I think there is a danger when powerful companies start going all political and throwing money at a problem instead of talking and discussions. You get 2 sides that keep pulling against each other and it becomes a matter of who has the most money!
