I thought for sure Mnuchin would have already done this.
Donāt forget about miscegenation - illegal in some states until 1967.
1 Like
Maybe, maybe not. If they get the checks out and the pandemic is somewhat contained by next year, Iām not as pessimistic as most that Ds will hold house next year. Besides voting rights reform (which can be gutted by the Supremes anyway), thereās nothing that appetizing they can pass anyway to secure the House.
Times like this I wish Trump could tweet. I imagine he would have a fantastic spin on Bidenās approval number.
Yeah he is. He definitely could be the impetus for a full scale civil war in the future.
This is all exactly what Zik said - discrimination was permitted. That is a different thing than discrimination being mandatory. And this is what I meant when I said earlier that this is one of those things youāre not allowed to push back on, because of course itās true that women have been and continue to be discriminated against in all kinds of ways, including financially. So pointing out something that is framed in a dishonest way to support a point that does not need embellishment to be supported is treated like questioning the underlying point.
Like, you could fill a bookshelf with literature on racial discrimination in housing that was codified in federal law until the 50s, was not prohibited until the 60s, and continues today in many ways. It would still be dishonest for me to say that a black person couldnāt own a house until the FHA was passed in 68.
7 Likes
Thatās not something that men could do but women couldnāt.
But it would apply to Harris - which was the original point of the graphic that started this.
Thatās if we donāt have Senator Gym Jordan.
While not bank accounts it is pretty clear women were not permitted to have credit cards without a husband.
That being said, credit cards were much less common back then. But still there were a ton of hurdles for them to assert ANY financial independence at all.
This is like the dumb systemic racism argument that took place on 22 a couple months ago. The entire system was designed to prevent certain people from doing certain things. Finding exceptions or that something was not precisely illegal is not a great counter for what was going on.
For all intents and purposes black people could not. But because it was not specifically illegal and a few exceptions existed, people canāt say āBlack people could not own a homeā? Agree to disagree. The requirement for that kind of precision only benefits those people who were responsible for the oppression and denial.
I
1 Like
But itās not something that applied to Harris but not to any of the vice-presidents who preceded her.
This is just completely untrue. Black owned neighborhoods existed prior to the FHAās passage. 35% of black households owned their homes in 1950.
Youāre doing the thing I just described.
2 Likes
Also, for the record, there is an argument to be made that making people think the discrimination of 40+ years ago was black and white cartoonish shit like āblack people couldnāt own a houseā diminishes peopleās ability to recognize and make meaningful comparisons to the discrimination that occurs today.
6 Likes
FAKE NEWS
https://twitter.com/WaitingOnBiden/status/1353726535275057153
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1353823740619083778
Iām not surprised that the war criminal who lied about his involvement in the Iraq War, who lied about marching with Mandela and about his involvement in the Civil Rights movement is now lying about campaign promises. Itās just sad.
7 Likes
doesnāt congress control that?
1 Like
Neither did womenās suffrage. They were just using the VPās to mark the date.
Youāre right, the President has nothing to do with it and thereās literally zero that Biden could do from his post as President of the United States to push the agenda that he promised.
Congrats!
1 Like