The woke brigades in the Democratic Party aren't merely annoying. They have undermined Democrats' appeal to the same minority communities they are supposedly so focused on 'including.'
I guess I'm not surprised to hear that Buttigieg emphasized the good intentions of the people he was disagreeing with. The likely explanation is that Buttigieg is a grownup, and this is how grownups in professional settings typically behave with regard to people they are trying to work and find common ground with. I realize it may not be common practice among pundits, who are more inclined to say things like "these people don’t have good intentions — they have a worldview that is wrong and bad, and they need to be stopped." But in the rest of the world that's not how smart people generally operate, and it seems like an odd thing to criticize Buttigieg for.
100% agree with you these people are annoying. But for most of us, dealing with annoying people is part of the job, and you can do it well or poorly.
Great point. Though Josh is right and many pundits are right about the Left, they still have some leverage. Even though they need to be stood up against, you can either make your life worse or better by the way you react.
I don’t think being nice to the Left will make it much better, but it won’t make it worse. They just need to be told “No. We need to focus on winning and getting back to the median voter’s priorities. We’ll listen and take into account your concerns and opinions, but you’re not always going to get your way. Perhaps often not going to get your way.”
Which are some of the popular ideas from the left? I'm sure there are some but most of the focus is on their many terrible ideas so maybe I've lost track.
Sure. A few are raising taxes on the wealthy, raising the minimum wage, legalizing marijuana, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, gun control, etc.
Gun control is unpopular so it’s a bad example. The rest are good examples but none of these are important issues for the median voter at the national level.
"Polling well" is a poor indicator of how people feel. Advocacy groups (any side) will put out a poll designed to generate a very positive response for their position and use this to convince other people their position is more popular than it is.
The actual test is how it does in actual elections, especially ballot proposals where voters can uncouple their gun policy from other issues.
Maine, which has voted blue in every presidential election this century, tried to get universal background checks on all gun transfers, and lost.
Specifics don’t poll well. There are plenty of gun laws that don’t get enforced because progressives are more concerned about disparate impacts rather than public safety. Gun control is not a winning issue for Democrats which is why Harris mentioned owning guns.
The problem is that these issues are never important enough at the national level to tip the election in favor of Democrats. You can always come up with poll questions that offer to give people free stuff and show that these policies are popular. I can create a poll that there should be free ice cream Fridays and a lot of people will say yes.
If Democrats offer and demonstrate good governance at the state level, it’s much more likely to persuade independents than giving them free stuff on an issue that’s not high priority for them.
You absolutely could be right that Buttigieg is fully on board with Josh and was just being polite. Or he could truly believe that the underlying ideology is fine but things just got a little out of hand. I don’t think we actually know which it is and I think that’s a problem.
The other issue is that he soft-sells too much, listeners might take him too literally — cancelling the dumbest trainings but not really addressing how the ideology flowed into policy.
Yeah. The optics are just horrific. I am wondering if an assault weapon ban at the federal level would make a meaningful difference. I know it wouldn’t eliminate all of the shootings, but maybe it would make a statistically significant difference. If not though, I wouldn’t be for it—ultimately you don’t want to infringe upon or regulate peoples’ rights if you don’t need to.
And great idea regarding the hand guns since those cause the most gun deaths (as you no doubt know).
PREACH, Josh. I love the economics pieces but I think Josh is always at his best with those that focus on excoriating the left. I agree with everything written here.
I left the Democratic Party in 2021 over these issues and while I didn't vote for Trump in 2024, I didn't vote for Kamala either. I was previously a major contributor to the Democratic Party and its candidates, maxing out my contributions to Joe Biden in both the primary and general elections during the 2020 campaign season.
A healthy democracy demands a healthy opposition party. We don't have that in the US and this is a critical problem for our country. Trump is steamrolling because Dems do not offer an appealing alternative - not because he does. I do not understand how they cannot seem to grasp that salient concept.
Some but he's rapidly losing popularity, with his worst polling in the past two days. Dems have offered up bad, unlikable candidates against Trump in 2016 and 2024 hoping and praying that people would find Trump MORE unlikable - that failed again and again.
1. Use real words that real people use and not those on activist social media use.
2. Not penalized any smart kids from a high quality education, including not allowing them to take advanced classes or not get into top tier schools in the name of equality. This includes not allowing kids to take Algebra before ninth grade.
Trump won last fall for every reason listed in Josh's comments and also because Kamala
was a poor candidate. The Party Powers stuck with Biden too long knowing that he was fading rapidly. They were late to the party in dumping Biden and left themselves with no chance to hold really competitive primaries that would have resulted in a candidate that could have beaten Trump.
Josh, I don't disagree with you on substance, but I think you're way overstating the importance of this issue. I can't stand the "equity" obsession and the watering down of education standards and I hope to see it go. At the same time it's not a thing outside of the bluest places.
On crime, I think Democrats everywhere have gotten the message. Voters in blue states approved tough on crime measures and crime has gone down across the country. In national elections, it's just that salient of an issue. It's a big issue in local elections, but, again, the dumb left-wing stuff is not much of a thing outside of the bluest places.
On immigration, Democrats have already pivoted. Biden tried to get a border bill passed that was 100% about enforcement and then issued an order clamping down on asylum claims, which resulted in border crossings going way down. Some Democrats also supported the Laken Riley Act, which was meant to just be a messaging bill and might have some serious unintended consequences. Regarding the migrant influx in cities, that, too, was not a thing outside of some solidly blue places.
As for the DNC, the entire spectacle was a huge embarrassment, but it's a toothless organization and doesn't matter. Nobody who isn't a political junkie has any idea who David Hogg is.
The cure for Democrats when it comes to purging DEI and other left-wing junk will have to be from their presidential nominee. They will need to nominate someone with a forceful and commanding presence who doesn't give a shit what The Groups think. But that won't happen until 2028 if it happens at all.
If anyone here is interested in my takes you can find my website at https://coldpoliticaltakes.substack.com/. I recently wrote about the state of the Democratic Party and, contrary to almost all the takes I've seen, I think they're going to be just fine.
Agree with every word. Unfortunately, the AOC/Bernie/Warren wing will not go away quietly in 2028. They will rely on the unpopularity of Trump to make another play at a power grab. If that doesn’t work, they’ll latch on to a moderate like they did with Biden and apply pressure to siphon off trillions of federal money for their pet causes like they did successfully under the Biden administration. The party will only change if they face a series of crushing defeats like they did in the 80s.
After reading Tom Nichols’s essay in The Atlantic and Mona Charen’s Bulwark column today (both of which accurately describe the state of play) it is highly refreshing for you, Josh, to explicitly say *what must be done*. Now we have to see if we can actually do it!
As an Asian American who no longer identifies with the Democratic Party, you are SPOT ON. Not once during Kamala's campaign did I hear them even mention Asian Americans (always just repeating how "America is for black, brown and immigrants" time and time again). Truth is that neither party really cares about us except when convenient, but Democratic policies are ACTIVELY harmful.
During Covid we especially saw how the loose on crime and bail reform combined with the internalized "oppression rankings" led to violent attacks and the murder of Asians with barely any acknowledgment or uproar from liberals (who otherwise love virtue signaling anti-racism).
Anyone who understands these dynamics would understand why an Asian American truly voting in their best interests would not vote for this party, and might have been open to Trump instead - the swing seen in a lot of communities to the right makes a LOT of sense. But many liberals won't ever get this because they think if you don't support "the party of DEI" then you must be racist yourself, and will close their eyes and ears to hearing any different!
The only factual error in your statement is about how the Harris campaign repeatedly mentioned “black, brown and immigrants”. They tried their best to distance themselves from identity politics but unfortunately, she and the Democrats have a poor record on that which voters didn’t forget.
I don't recall HER saying those words herself, but they were absolutely spoken by spotlighted speakers during her televised rallies and primetime events ("speakers of color" who I assume the campaign chose and vetted). I watched everything waiting for just one mention about asian americans during the whole campaign and never heard it. (The other interpretation of statements like that would be that they lumped asians into the immigrant category which would be offensive in its own way.)
So in same the way that I assume highlighting "black and brown" speakers, performers etc. was to draw in similar voters, the utter lack of asians representation or acknowledgement indicated to me that they either took us for granted, didn't care enough, or thought it would lose them those other voters by doing so.
And then apart from the crime issues mentioned above, these championed concepts of DEI, affirmative action, under-represented minorities... designed to SOUND inclusive to well-meaning or virtue signaling liberals, but actually not helping and often actively hurting asian americans... a varied community that has weathered centuries of anti-asian sentiment and is WAY under-represented in American power structures, leadership, politics, media, pop culture and very vulnerable... it is so offensive to me.
The culmination of all of this was a realization of "this party is disingenuous and hypocritical, they are not even trying to be for me, and their policies are actually against me"
Apart from certain states like CA and NY, East Asians don’t seem to run for office very often. Might be a cultural thing because Indian Americans, who are also Asian btw, seem to be doing fine even though they too are harmed by policies like AA. Personally, I don’t care if politicians mention my demographic or not because I don’t suffer from low self esteem issues like you do.
Nope, South Asians mostly came as skilled immigrants after 1965 and haven’t faced the CENTURIES-long Yellow Peril spy paranoia or deep-rooted Sinophobia that East Asians have in this country, so I don’t expect you to have the same lived experience. You don't have to take it personally. My Indian friends often pass as Dominican or Mediterranean, etc — that goes a long way in this country. But calling the lack of East Asian representation a “self-esteem” issue? That’s wild.
I’m just old enough to have faced direct, in-your-face racism for being perceived as Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese—whichever East Asian group was most hated at the time.
Quick tidbits from history?
• Chinese laborers built the most dangerous parts of the railroads in the 1800s, only for the U.S. to ban Chinese (and later most of Asia) immigration with the Exclusion Act (effectively until 1965)
• Because of racism Chinese Americans were only allowed to do laundries and restaurants, then smeared with racist “suspicious meat” and “MSG scare” myths.
• Japanese Americans were thrown into camps and treated worse than German and Italian POWs.
• The 2018 China Initiative baselessly targeted scientists, while Asian politicians and business leaders still face unfounded spy accusations today.
• And COVID? Businesses were spurned, my asian friends and I were spit on, stalked on the street by unhinged people, and heard of attacks or murders (sometimes down the street), every few days—for simply looking "Chinese" and thus being blamed.
These patterns didn’t just disappear over time—they shape how we’re seen, who gets the benefit of the doubt, and who’s considered “fully American.” Whether it's movie casting to leadership roles, East Asians are still stereotyped, othered, overlooked, and distrusted in ways that have nothing to do with “self-esteem” and to deny those forces exist would be extremely disingenuous.
Yes, these are self-esteem issues because I live in the Bay Area among many East Asians and they don’t have these weird hangups over their ethnic group being mentioned by politicians to validate their identity. Also, they are smart enough to know that India is in Asia.
The fact that you mentioned these ancient historical events as part of your lived experience tells me that you’re a full blown retard and have mental health problems.
There's a whole America without a concentration of East Asians outside of the Bay Area buddy. And many of the ones killed during covid were elderly people in SF whose families have probably lived there for generations - go tell them history doesn't matter. Good luck living in your privilege and don't go to Canada!
If this poll is to be believed https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3919 "DEI" policies have a higher approval rating than the Democratic party right now. So I don't think the problem can be as simple as you put it, or not quite the right way around.
I agree that the acronymic bafflegab has been a catastrophe for them (much as the Republicans letting their weird theocrat/race-nationalist vocabulary slip out has been for them), but that may be more a problem of language and framing than of substance.
Say they’re sorry? I suppose maybe in some cases this could be welcome. But are there cases of politicians, and especially of Republican politicians (you can think of a lot of economic and social/cultural matters), who have had success electorally and done so by saying they are sorry? Nothing is honestly coming to mind. I’m not sure this matters as a substantive matter and electoral strategy based on history.
So on point! I work in the arts/culture and this identity fetishization is now deeply rooted but so destructive. And here we are, five weeks into the Trump term, and people around me are still confused about how this happened. Tragic!
I agree with this but you're mistaken about BIPOC and the group known misleadingly to East Coast residents as Hispanics. At least in the western U.S., they are predominantly indigenous, which means that as soon as they cross the border they go from the lowest rung of society to having a chance to become just another ethnic group.
I guess I'm not surprised to hear that Buttigieg emphasized the good intentions of the people he was disagreeing with. The likely explanation is that Buttigieg is a grownup, and this is how grownups in professional settings typically behave with regard to people they are trying to work and find common ground with. I realize it may not be common practice among pundits, who are more inclined to say things like "these people don’t have good intentions — they have a worldview that is wrong and bad, and they need to be stopped." But in the rest of the world that's not how smart people generally operate, and it seems like an odd thing to criticize Buttigieg for.
100% agree with you these people are annoying. But for most of us, dealing with annoying people is part of the job, and you can do it well or poorly.
Great point. Though Josh is right and many pundits are right about the Left, they still have some leverage. Even though they need to be stood up against, you can either make your life worse or better by the way you react.
I don’t think being nice to the Left will make it much better, but it won’t make it worse. They just need to be told “No. We need to focus on winning and getting back to the median voter’s priorities. We’ll listen and take into account your concerns and opinions, but you’re not always going to get your way. Perhaps often not going to get your way.”
Which are some of the popular ideas from the left? I'm sure there are some but most of the focus is on their many terrible ideas so maybe I've lost track.
Sure. A few are raising taxes on the wealthy, raising the minimum wage, legalizing marijuana, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, gun control, etc.
Gun control is unpopular so it’s a bad example. The rest are good examples but none of these are important issues for the median voter at the national level.
Gun control polls pretty well, doesn’t it? I think voters get cold feet when it comes to enacting those measures, though.
"Polling well" is a poor indicator of how people feel. Advocacy groups (any side) will put out a poll designed to generate a very positive response for their position and use this to convince other people their position is more popular than it is.
The actual test is how it does in actual elections, especially ballot proposals where voters can uncouple their gun policy from other issues.
Maine, which has voted blue in every presidential election this century, tried to get universal background checks on all gun transfers, and lost.
https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Background_Checks_for_Gun_Sales,_Question_3_(2016) Nevada, more blue, barely passed a similar bill the next year.
Specifics don’t poll well. There are plenty of gun laws that don’t get enforced because progressives are more concerned about disparate impacts rather than public safety. Gun control is not a winning issue for Democrats which is why Harris mentioned owning guns.
Expanded family leave is broadly popular. The problem the democrats have is their policy is the kitchen sick and extremely unfocused.
The problem is that these issues are never important enough at the national level to tip the election in favor of Democrats. You can always come up with poll questions that offer to give people free stuff and show that these policies are popular. I can create a poll that there should be free ice cream Fridays and a lot of people will say yes.
If Democrats offer and demonstrate good governance at the state level, it’s much more likely to persuade independents than giving them free stuff on an issue that’s not high priority for them.
Sounds about right!
You absolutely could be right that Buttigieg is fully on board with Josh and was just being polite. Or he could truly believe that the underlying ideology is fine but things just got a little out of hand. I don’t think we actually know which it is and I think that’s a problem.
The other issue is that he soft-sells too much, listeners might take him too literally — cancelling the dumbest trainings but not really addressing how the ideology flowed into policy.
Yeah. The optics are just horrific. I am wondering if an assault weapon ban at the federal level would make a meaningful difference. I know it wouldn’t eliminate all of the shootings, but maybe it would make a statistically significant difference. If not though, I wouldn’t be for it—ultimately you don’t want to infringe upon or regulate peoples’ rights if you don’t need to.
And great idea regarding the hand guns since those cause the most gun deaths (as you no doubt know).
PREACH, Josh. I love the economics pieces but I think Josh is always at his best with those that focus on excoriating the left. I agree with everything written here.
I left the Democratic Party in 2021 over these issues and while I didn't vote for Trump in 2024, I didn't vote for Kamala either. I was previously a major contributor to the Democratic Party and its candidates, maxing out my contributions to Joe Biden in both the primary and general elections during the 2020 campaign season.
A healthy democracy demands a healthy opposition party. We don't have that in the US and this is a critical problem for our country. Trump is steamrolling because Dems do not offer an appealing alternative - not because he does. I do not understand how they cannot seem to grasp that salient concept.
I'm in a similar situation although I was never a registered Democrat and I did hold my nose and voted for Harris because the alternative was Trump.
I don't agree with one point that Trump does not offer anything appealing. At least some of his positions are quite popular.
Some but he's rapidly losing popularity, with his worst polling in the past two days. Dems have offered up bad, unlikable candidates against Trump in 2016 and 2024 hoping and praying that people would find Trump MORE unlikable - that failed again and again.
Part of the reason Democrats nominate bad candidates is because their platform is full of terrible, unappealing policies.
Excellent Josh!
Democrats need to do a few main things-
1. Use real words that real people use and not those on activist social media use.
2. Not penalized any smart kids from a high quality education, including not allowing them to take advanced classes or not get into top tier schools in the name of equality. This includes not allowing kids to take Algebra before ninth grade.
3. Put actual criminals in jail.
4. Touch grass every once in a while.
Spoken like a true cis white male.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. Great piece as always!
Trump won last fall for every reason listed in Josh's comments and also because Kamala
was a poor candidate. The Party Powers stuck with Biden too long knowing that he was fading rapidly. They were late to the party in dumping Biden and left themselves with no chance to hold really competitive primaries that would have resulted in a candidate that could have beaten Trump.
Josh, I don't disagree with you on substance, but I think you're way overstating the importance of this issue. I can't stand the "equity" obsession and the watering down of education standards and I hope to see it go. At the same time it's not a thing outside of the bluest places.
On crime, I think Democrats everywhere have gotten the message. Voters in blue states approved tough on crime measures and crime has gone down across the country. In national elections, it's just that salient of an issue. It's a big issue in local elections, but, again, the dumb left-wing stuff is not much of a thing outside of the bluest places.
On immigration, Democrats have already pivoted. Biden tried to get a border bill passed that was 100% about enforcement and then issued an order clamping down on asylum claims, which resulted in border crossings going way down. Some Democrats also supported the Laken Riley Act, which was meant to just be a messaging bill and might have some serious unintended consequences. Regarding the migrant influx in cities, that, too, was not a thing outside of some solidly blue places.
As for the DNC, the entire spectacle was a huge embarrassment, but it's a toothless organization and doesn't matter. Nobody who isn't a political junkie has any idea who David Hogg is.
The cure for Democrats when it comes to purging DEI and other left-wing junk will have to be from their presidential nominee. They will need to nominate someone with a forceful and commanding presence who doesn't give a shit what The Groups think. But that won't happen until 2028 if it happens at all.
If anyone here is interested in my takes you can find my website at https://coldpoliticaltakes.substack.com/. I recently wrote about the state of the Democratic Party and, contrary to almost all the takes I've seen, I think they're going to be just fine.
Will check it out!
Agree with every word. Unfortunately, the AOC/Bernie/Warren wing will not go away quietly in 2028. They will rely on the unpopularity of Trump to make another play at a power grab. If that doesn’t work, they’ll latch on to a moderate like they did with Biden and apply pressure to siphon off trillions of federal money for their pet causes like they did successfully under the Biden administration. The party will only change if they face a series of crushing defeats like they did in the 80s.
After reading Tom Nichols’s essay in The Atlantic and Mona Charen’s Bulwark column today (both of which accurately describe the state of play) it is highly refreshing for you, Josh, to explicitly say *what must be done*. Now we have to see if we can actually do it!
As an Asian American who no longer identifies with the Democratic Party, you are SPOT ON. Not once during Kamala's campaign did I hear them even mention Asian Americans (always just repeating how "America is for black, brown and immigrants" time and time again). Truth is that neither party really cares about us except when convenient, but Democratic policies are ACTIVELY harmful.
During Covid we especially saw how the loose on crime and bail reform combined with the internalized "oppression rankings" led to violent attacks and the murder of Asians with barely any acknowledgment or uproar from liberals (who otherwise love virtue signaling anti-racism).
Anyone who understands these dynamics would understand why an Asian American truly voting in their best interests would not vote for this party, and might have been open to Trump instead - the swing seen in a lot of communities to the right makes a LOT of sense. But many liberals won't ever get this because they think if you don't support "the party of DEI" then you must be racist yourself, and will close their eyes and ears to hearing any different!
The only factual error in your statement is about how the Harris campaign repeatedly mentioned “black, brown and immigrants”. They tried their best to distance themselves from identity politics but unfortunately, she and the Democrats have a poor record on that which voters didn’t forget.
I don't recall HER saying those words herself, but they were absolutely spoken by spotlighted speakers during her televised rallies and primetime events ("speakers of color" who I assume the campaign chose and vetted). I watched everything waiting for just one mention about asian americans during the whole campaign and never heard it. (The other interpretation of statements like that would be that they lumped asians into the immigrant category which would be offensive in its own way.)
So in same the way that I assume highlighting "black and brown" speakers, performers etc. was to draw in similar voters, the utter lack of asians representation or acknowledgement indicated to me that they either took us for granted, didn't care enough, or thought it would lose them those other voters by doing so.
And then apart from the crime issues mentioned above, these championed concepts of DEI, affirmative action, under-represented minorities... designed to SOUND inclusive to well-meaning or virtue signaling liberals, but actually not helping and often actively hurting asian americans... a varied community that has weathered centuries of anti-asian sentiment and is WAY under-represented in American power structures, leadership, politics, media, pop culture and very vulnerable... it is so offensive to me.
The culmination of all of this was a realization of "this party is disingenuous and hypocritical, they are not even trying to be for me, and their policies are actually against me"
Apart from certain states like CA and NY, East Asians don’t seem to run for office very often. Might be a cultural thing because Indian Americans, who are also Asian btw, seem to be doing fine even though they too are harmed by policies like AA. Personally, I don’t care if politicians mention my demographic or not because I don’t suffer from low self esteem issues like you do.
Nope, South Asians mostly came as skilled immigrants after 1965 and haven’t faced the CENTURIES-long Yellow Peril spy paranoia or deep-rooted Sinophobia that East Asians have in this country, so I don’t expect you to have the same lived experience. You don't have to take it personally. My Indian friends often pass as Dominican or Mediterranean, etc — that goes a long way in this country. But calling the lack of East Asian representation a “self-esteem” issue? That’s wild.
I’m just old enough to have faced direct, in-your-face racism for being perceived as Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese—whichever East Asian group was most hated at the time.
Quick tidbits from history?
• Chinese laborers built the most dangerous parts of the railroads in the 1800s, only for the U.S. to ban Chinese (and later most of Asia) immigration with the Exclusion Act (effectively until 1965)
• Because of racism Chinese Americans were only allowed to do laundries and restaurants, then smeared with racist “suspicious meat” and “MSG scare” myths.
• Japanese Americans were thrown into camps and treated worse than German and Italian POWs.
• The 2018 China Initiative baselessly targeted scientists, while Asian politicians and business leaders still face unfounded spy accusations today.
• And COVID? Businesses were spurned, my asian friends and I were spit on, stalked on the street by unhinged people, and heard of attacks or murders (sometimes down the street), every few days—for simply looking "Chinese" and thus being blamed.
These patterns didn’t just disappear over time—they shape how we’re seen, who gets the benefit of the doubt, and who’s considered “fully American.” Whether it's movie casting to leadership roles, East Asians are still stereotyped, othered, overlooked, and distrusted in ways that have nothing to do with “self-esteem” and to deny those forces exist would be extremely disingenuous.
Yes, these are self-esteem issues because I live in the Bay Area among many East Asians and they don’t have these weird hangups over their ethnic group being mentioned by politicians to validate their identity. Also, they are smart enough to know that India is in Asia.
The fact that you mentioned these ancient historical events as part of your lived experience tells me that you’re a full blown retard and have mental health problems.
There's a whole America without a concentration of East Asians outside of the Bay Area buddy. And many of the ones killed during covid were elderly people in SF whose families have probably lived there for generations - go tell them history doesn't matter. Good luck living in your privilege and don't go to Canada!
If this poll is to be believed https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3919 "DEI" policies have a higher approval rating than the Democratic party right now. So I don't think the problem can be as simple as you put it, or not quite the right way around.
I agree that the acronymic bafflegab has been a catastrophe for them (much as the Republicans letting their weird theocrat/race-nationalist vocabulary slip out has been for them), but that may be more a problem of language and framing than of substance.
Say they’re sorry? I suppose maybe in some cases this could be welcome. But are there cases of politicians, and especially of Republican politicians (you can think of a lot of economic and social/cultural matters), who have had success electorally and done so by saying they are sorry? Nothing is honestly coming to mind. I’m not sure this matters as a substantive matter and electoral strategy based on history.
So on point! I work in the arts/culture and this identity fetishization is now deeply rooted but so destructive. And here we are, five weeks into the Trump term, and people around me are still confused about how this happened. Tragic!
Keep ‘em coming, Josh!
I agree with this but you're mistaken about BIPOC and the group known misleadingly to East Coast residents as Hispanics. At least in the western U.S., they are predominantly indigenous, which means that as soon as they cross the border they go from the lowest rung of society to having a chance to become just another ethnic group.
If only they’d listen…..
Amen!