Especially since it’s been one of the American right’s go-to dog whistles to racists for decades. But yeah, it’s all “learning errors” and “just joking”.
17 Likes
It occurs to me the standard corporate strategy of betting on both sides is getting more and more fraught, what with the country being polarized between liberals and actual neo-Nazis.
5 Likes
If Google donated $5K to every single politician running for national office it wouldn’t do much to hurt the company’s bottom line, but it would buy them access to virtually anyone who is in a position to craft the laws which regulate companies like Google.
Even without outright bribery, politicians have a finite amount of time to spend with constituents and they’re more likely to spend that time with the donors who helped put them in office. So the policies they support are most likely going to reflect the concerns of those constituents, because those are the ones who are able to make their voices heard.
12 Likes
“Candidates who in engage in racist and white supremacist language and rhetoric, or support discriminatory policies should never receive financial support from Google.”
Roger That!
10 Likes
Yet again:
24 Likes
But who exactly do you think was being hung in the context of that “joke”?
@Melizmatic says it best
21 Likes
13 Likes
The ROI on political contributions made by corporations is astronomical. The cost/benefit analysis for legal bribery in the US is very simple. Give a few thousand dollars to several politicians and you can expect that if you ask for favorable legislation in the future you’ll be rewarded with payback that dwarfs your initial investment by at least 100x.
Update: My numbers were way off. The Sunlight Foundation’s research shows that the 400 most “politically active” corporations see a 75,900% return on their contributions (bribes).
16 Likes
Especially in Mississippi, like in “Mississippi Burning” and “Mississippi Goddam.” She will never convince me that there was not a racial subtext to this “joke” even if it was not directly applicable to her opponant. Her black opponent. Fuck her, she knew exactly what she was saying.
16 Likes
Well, if you contribute to the party of the “Southern Strategy” you’re going to have unfortunate events from time to time where these people publicly verbalize what they believe, and then you get called on it. So whether it was before or after the event, Google knew the risk when they paid her campaign.
8 Likes
Agreed that she knew exactly what she was saying, but unfuck her; she clearly doesn’t deserve the privilege.
17 Likes
Cindy Hyde-Smith Accepted Campaign Donation from Noted White Supremacist
3 Likes
So I think a little clarification is due here. The organization that has donated here is the ‘Google NETPAC’, which is a political action group funded privately by employees of Google, and donating to it is entirely opt-in for employees. As far as I understand it, Google the corporation does not put any money into the NETPAC.
So… it’s not exactly Google donating, but a bunch of Google employees.
The details of who the netpac donates to is online : https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cycle=2018&cmte=C00428623
and the donations are spread across Democrats and Republicans. In the senate Democratic donations total about twice the Republican ones in 2018.
1 Like
The white terrorists who hung POC after lynching them for most of American history were well aware of its medieval roots as an intimidation tactic by local elites against outsiders and anyone with the gall to try to improve their station or escape the yoke of their families’ lords.
11 Likes
You know what I mean: metaphorical scavengers and exploiters.
1 Like
The political system in the US is based on bribes from big companies and rich individuals.
In most countries giving money to politicians to influence them is called corruption and you will end up in jail for it.
In the US it is regarded as something normal. This is so messed up…
2 Likes
No, in most countries, it’s legal to give politicians money in the hopes of influencing them, as long as you do it by the rules. Political donations are not something unique to the US, or inherently bad either.
What’s bad is the amount of money in the US politics, and the too-loose rules about donations (via superPACs and whatever else).
3 Likes
It’s a phrase. She was saying she would do something very unpleasant (being front-row for a public hanging) for her host at the event, because she liked him so much.
It had nothing to do with a lynching. And nothing to do with her political opponent.
Can you cite any precedent for people using that phrase to mean such a thing?
There are plenty of ways she could have expressed that sentiment and a politician of all people knows that words have meaning. Why the hell would she choose something as historically and racially charged as a hanging?
14 Likes
13 Likes
