The tribe of inclusion and acceptance and equality sure has been vigorous about pronouncing people excommunicate for refusing to hate vigorously enough.
If someone blocks an endorsement in an election where one candidate is so clearly unqualified for the presidency, there is no way to see it as anything other than a tacit approval of this filth.
Oh, it's worse than that. I have yet to see any of the DEI types come out in favor for raising the cap on damages related to violations of the ADA Act. When Bloomberg is getting concerned that the law written to be ignored and the average Liberal isn't there's a problem: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/slashed-366...
This "tribe of inclusion" narrative is getting pretty tired for a strawman. I'm libertarian. I'm voting conservative in 2024, aka democrat for those who haven't been following closely. As much as I despise bureaucratic authoritarianism, it's still a major improvement over autocratic authoritarianism. Bureaucratic authoritarianism is most certainly infuriating, and likening it to cult of personality fascism has merit as a critique. But there are significant differences between the two, and we should not take for granted what we do have.
Normalizing ("attempting neutrality") and kowtowing to fascism (preemptively avoiding upsetting an autocrat who may gain power) means you're supporting fascism, which makes one a fascist. Not head of the party or anything, just the minor kind who everyone looks back on and wonders why so many people just fell into line.
Economically, the current administration has exercised the most fiscal responsibility there has been over the past twenty years, setting moderate interest rates instead of profligate ZIRP. I don't know how well our economy could do after another round of helicopter money printing to juice the Potemkin stock market (causing rampant price inflation several years later) in lieu of directly addressing the national emergencies that will invariably arise.
Also, remember when political parties dropped their one term failures and chose a new candidate, rather than doubling down with nonsense narratives about stolen elections? Pettridge farm remembers.
Gruber asserted nothing but cowardice, never mentioning fascism. He also made an argument from sources for this judgement, so I'm not sure where your second paragraph came from.
As a businessman, it would be foolish for Jeff Bezos to be construed as endorsing a presidential candidate. The country is highly divided and we're headed into the largest sales period of the year for American retail. Do you think Mr. Bezos wants to screw that pooch? Presumably, nearly half of his customers support Trump. Why would he do anything to incentivize them to go check out what Walmart.com can do for them?
Also, what does endorsing Harris 12 days before the election buy you? I don't seriously believe anybody has been "undecided" since the campaign shifted to being Harris vs. Trump. I would wager that 99.99% of all Americans, whether they vote at all, have known whom they're voting for from day one.
So, you're not going to make any material impact on the election, and you stand to lose a lot of business. You can call it cowardice; I call it smart business.
Americans had better get used to it because if Trump gets elected, you're going to see a lot more of it. Let's not forget that some of our favorite German brands today were once affiliated with Germany's Nazi Party. History has a weird way of repeating itself.
Since US ballots are secret, and there are many good reasons for that being the case, I see no reason why a businessman has any responsibility for endorsing a candidate.
If they want to publicly state that one candidate or another is advocating for policies that help or hinder their business, then it may be beneficial to their business to point that out. But that's not an endorsement. Businesses are well-advised to stick to policy - and stick to policy that directly affects their business.
> I’ve been a paying subscriber to The Washington Post for many years. Not anymore. I recommend you do the same.
Sadly Bezos won't care.
attempting neutrality now makes you a fascist
The tribe of inclusion and acceptance and equality sure has been vigorous about pronouncing people excommunicate for refusing to hate vigorously enough.
Oh, really? The “tribe of inclusion and acceptance and equality” is spewing hate? Not the side calling Puerto Rico a garbage patch and accusing Latinos of overbreeding? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/27/us/trump-msg-rally.html
If someone blocks an endorsement in an election where one candidate is so clearly unqualified for the presidency, there is no way to see it as anything other than a tacit approval of this filth.
Oh, it's worse than that. I have yet to see any of the DEI types come out in favor for raising the cap on damages related to violations of the ADA Act. When Bloomberg is getting concerned that the law written to be ignored and the average Liberal isn't there's a problem: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/slashed-366...
This "tribe of inclusion" narrative is getting pretty tired for a strawman. I'm libertarian. I'm voting conservative in 2024, aka democrat for those who haven't been following closely. As much as I despise bureaucratic authoritarianism, it's still a major improvement over autocratic authoritarianism. Bureaucratic authoritarianism is most certainly infuriating, and likening it to cult of personality fascism has merit as a critique. But there are significant differences between the two, and we should not take for granted what we do have.
Normalizing ("attempting neutrality") and kowtowing to fascism (preemptively avoiding upsetting an autocrat who may gain power) means you're supporting fascism, which makes one a fascist. Not head of the party or anything, just the minor kind who everyone looks back on and wonders why so many people just fell into line.
Economically, the current administration has exercised the most fiscal responsibility there has been over the past twenty years, setting moderate interest rates instead of profligate ZIRP. I don't know how well our economy could do after another round of helicopter money printing to juice the Potemkin stock market (causing rampant price inflation several years later) in lieu of directly addressing the national emergencies that will invariably arise.
Also, remember when political parties dropped their one term failures and chose a new candidate, rather than doubling down with nonsense narratives about stolen elections? Pettridge farm remembers.
Gruber asserted nothing but cowardice, never mentioning fascism. He also made an argument from sources for this judgement, so I'm not sure where your second paragraph came from.
As a businessman, it would be foolish for Jeff Bezos to be construed as endorsing a presidential candidate. The country is highly divided and we're headed into the largest sales period of the year for American retail. Do you think Mr. Bezos wants to screw that pooch? Presumably, nearly half of his customers support Trump. Why would he do anything to incentivize them to go check out what Walmart.com can do for them?
Also, what does endorsing Harris 12 days before the election buy you? I don't seriously believe anybody has been "undecided" since the campaign shifted to being Harris vs. Trump. I would wager that 99.99% of all Americans, whether they vote at all, have known whom they're voting for from day one.
So, you're not going to make any material impact on the election, and you stand to lose a lot of business. You can call it cowardice; I call it smart business.
Americans had better get used to it because if Trump gets elected, you're going to see a lot more of it. Let's not forget that some of our favorite German brands today were once affiliated with Germany's Nazi Party. History has a weird way of repeating itself.
Sure, if the _only_ responsibility of a businessman was to maximize revenue.
Since US ballots are secret, and there are many good reasons for that being the case, I see no reason why a businessman has any responsibility for endorsing a candidate.
If they want to publicly state that one candidate or another is advocating for policies that help or hinder their business, then it may be beneficial to their business to point that out. But that's not an endorsement. Businesses are well-advised to stick to policy - and stick to policy that directly affects their business.
Congratulations on that last paragraph!