3 ms·

> I've earmarked 3% of my income every month for a list of selected charities that currently includes the ACLU, the HRC, and a short list of smaller ones. I do

> I've earmarked 3% of my income every month for a list of selected charities that currently includes the ACLU, the HRC, and a short list of smaller ones. I don't think that's a good investment, considering how badly those organizations failed in order to bring us to today.

andy_ppp 2y ago
How did these organisations make people vote for Donald Trump?
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  Not OP, but to me, these are organizations that are meant for a world where laws matter. They spent the four years of the Biden administration acting like a hall monitor telling other students they can't smoke in the boys' room. Like, not only can they smoke in the boys' room, they have done so repeatedly. They have upgraded from clove cigarettes to tobacco to weed to crack. The current oligarchs of the US got there by having no shame and by not caring about the rules, because ultimately, they're just words on paper unless someone uses force (through the state's monopoly on it) to make them a reality.
- returningfory2 2y ago
  By successfully pressuring Democratic politicians like Kamala Harris to publicly adopt progressive positions that are unpopular, but highly favored by the kind of people who donate to and operate organizations like the ACLU. For example, the (unfortunately very successful) Trump ad “Harris is for they/them, Trump is for you” ultimately originates with the ACLU. In 2019 they successfully got Harris to pledge government funding for gender affirming care for people in e.g. immigration detention [1]. It is totally insane that the ACLU thought it was important and worthwhile to get a pledge on this edge case. In general this advocacy was way out of touch with the country at large, has totally backfired, and now landed us with an anti-trans administration. [1] question 14 here https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-rights-for-all-candidate-questionnaire-2019 https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-rights-for-all-candidate...
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    In 2019? That was before 2020, and that election resulted in Harris being vice president.
    - returningfory2 2y ago
      Is your claim seriously that Kamala Harris's image on cultural issues like trans rights did not harm her election campaign? One of Trump's most successful campaign ads was the one that included her talking about government-funded gender affirming care for people in prison. It even has its own Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_is_for_they/them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_is_for_they/them). The fact that this stuff started in 2019 that she won as VP in 2020 is irrelevant; it _clearly_ was an issue in the 2024 that hurt her. But that's just one example of many. There's also, say, Biden's handling of the border. Even though in 2022 it was clearly deeply unpopular and playing right into Trump's reelection campaign, he didn't change course (until too late) because of pressure from groups like the ACLU. Overall, IMO one of the biggest factors in Trump's reelection is that the left and the center-left _talked_ about Trump being a big problem, but were unwilling to actually alter their policies or behavior or messaging to broaden their appeal and ensure Trump lost.
      - cma 2y ago
        But when Democrats did change course they were blocked because Trump explicitly said Democrats passing something on the issue would hurt his election chances: > In February 2024 and again in May 2024, Republicans in the Senate blocked a bipartisan border security bill Biden had pushed for to reduce the number of migrants who can claim asylum at the border and provide more money for Customs and Border Protection officials, asylum officers, immigration judges and scanning technology at the border.[79] It also provided for thousands of work visas for migrant spouses of U.S. citizens awaiting immigrant visas, and 250,000 new visas over five years for people seeking to work in the U.S. or join family members.[80] It was negotiated in a bipartisan manner and initially looked like it had the votes to pass until Donald Trump opposed it, citing that it would boost Biden's reelection chances. https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy_of_the_Joe_Biden_administration#Bipartisan_Border_Security_Bill_(2023-2024) https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy_of_the_Joe... He had no political consequence for encouraging blocking it.
- palmotea 2y ago
  > How did these organisations make people vote for Donald Trump? It's not so much that they made people vote for Trump, but that they utterly failed to rise to the occasion, despite screaming how the stakes were so high. I really think a lot of the so-called opposition saw Trump as a wedge to selfishly drive support towards their little ideological or personal priorities. I think the way forward is probably to ditch finger-wagging liberal technocracy and go for a more competent, law-abiding populism, which seeks to strike a compromise that can comfortably get super-majority support (i.e. 60%+ rather than 50%+1) and speak effectively to many of the anxieties Trump harnesses. You're not going to get that by giving to special interest activist organizations.
LeoPanthera 2y ago
I am happy to learn about better alternatives.
- lukas099 2y ago
  Democracy Forward has brought many of the lawsuits against the president’s executive overreach IIRC. Democracy Docket has had a lot of success protecting voting rights.
  - LeoPanthera 2y ago
    I am happy to say that Democracy Forward was already on my list.
  - pavel_lishin 2y ago
    Donated.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
whoknowsidont 2y ago
>considering how badly those organizations failed in order to bring us to today. They don't have that much money.

andy_ppp 2y ago

How did these organisations make people vote for Donald Trump?

lenerdenator 2y ago
Not OP, but to me, these are organizations that are meant for a world where laws matter. They spent the four years of the Biden administration acting like a hall monitor telling other students they can't smoke in the boys' room. Like, not only can they smoke in the boys' room, they have done so repeatedly. They have upgraded from clove cigarettes to tobacco to weed to crack. The current oligarchs of the US got there by having no shame and by not caring about the rules, because ultimately, they're just words on paper unless someone uses force (through the state's monopoly on it) to make them a reality.
returningfory2 2y ago
By successfully pressuring Democratic politicians like Kamala Harris to publicly adopt progressive positions that are unpopular, but highly favored by the kind of people who donate to and operate organizations like the ACLU. For example, the (unfortunately very successful) Trump ad “Harris is for they/them, Trump is for you” ultimately originates with the ACLU. In 2019 they successfully got Harris to pledge government funding for gender affirming care for people in e.g. immigration detention [1]. It is totally insane that the ACLU thought it was important and worthwhile to get a pledge on this edge case. In general this advocacy was way out of touch with the country at large, has totally backfired, and now landed us with an anti-trans administration. [1] question 14 here https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-rights-for-all-candidate-questionnaire-2019 https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-rights-for-all-candidate...
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  In 2019? That was before 2020, and that election resulted in Harris being vice president.
  - returningfory2 2y ago
    Is your claim seriously that Kamala Harris's image on cultural issues like trans rights did not harm her election campaign? One of Trump's most successful campaign ads was the one that included her talking about government-funded gender affirming care for people in prison. It even has its own Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_is_for_they/them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_is_for_they/them). The fact that this stuff started in 2019 that she won as VP in 2020 is irrelevant; it _clearly_ was an issue in the 2024 that hurt her. But that's just one example of many. There's also, say, Biden's handling of the border. Even though in 2022 it was clearly deeply unpopular and playing right into Trump's reelection campaign, he didn't change course (until too late) because of pressure from groups like the ACLU. Overall, IMO one of the biggest factors in Trump's reelection is that the left and the center-left _talked_ about Trump being a big problem, but were unwilling to actually alter their policies or behavior or messaging to broaden their appeal and ensure Trump lost.
    - cma 2y ago
      But when Democrats did change course they were blocked because Trump explicitly said Democrats passing something on the issue would hurt his election chances: > In February 2024 and again in May 2024, Republicans in the Senate blocked a bipartisan border security bill Biden had pushed for to reduce the number of migrants who can claim asylum at the border and provide more money for Customs and Border Protection officials, asylum officers, immigration judges and scanning technology at the border.[79] It also provided for thousands of work visas for migrant spouses of U.S. citizens awaiting immigrant visas, and 250,000 new visas over five years for people seeking to work in the U.S. or join family members.[80] It was negotiated in a bipartisan manner and initially looked like it had the votes to pass until Donald Trump opposed it, citing that it would boost Biden's reelection chances. https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy_of_the_Joe_Biden_administration#Bipartisan_Border_Security_Bill_(2023-2024) https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy_of_the_Joe... He had no political consequence for encouraging blocking it.
palmotea 2y ago
> How did these organisations make people vote for Donald Trump? It's not so much that they made people vote for Trump, but that they utterly failed to rise to the occasion, despite screaming how the stakes were so high. I really think a lot of the so-called opposition saw Trump as a wedge to selfishly drive support towards their little ideological or personal priorities. I think the way forward is probably to ditch finger-wagging liberal technocracy and go for a more competent, law-abiding populism, which seeks to strike a compromise that can comfortably get super-majority support (i.e. 60%+ rather than 50%+1) and speak effectively to many of the anxieties Trump harnesses. You're not going to get that by giving to special interest activist organizations.

LeoPanthera 2y ago

I am happy to learn about better alternatives.

lukas099 2y ago
Democracy Forward has brought many of the lawsuits against the president’s executive overreach IIRC. Democracy Docket has had a lot of success protecting voting rights.
- LeoPanthera 2y ago
  I am happy to say that Democracy Forward was already on my list.
- pavel_lishin 2y ago
  Donated.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

whoknowsidont 2y ago

>considering how badly those organizations failed in order to bring us to today. They don't have that much money.