Agreed. I say good for her, and I wish her luck weathering all the legal threats and character assassination that will follow.
Okay, she was slow to catch on to the obvious stuff that we all saw. She was deep inside the reality distortion zone, and was excited by what seemed a nice limited mission. Many never see past that. I appreciate her added perspective.
BTW: Does this indicate that Drumpf operated directly with a super-PAC?
Is that actionable?
Or does it fall under the three categories that donât apply to him (rules, laws, & facts)?
What @kupfernigk said. And also â who really cares why they claim theyâre saying what they say, when what matters more is the (anti-women) effects of what they say?
Seems to me that your attempts in this thread to carry water for the Republican Party arenât getting anywhere. Arenât those buckets getting heavy by now?
Iâm not trying to carry anything. I am encouraging better understanding between people. When the right portrays the left as whiny granola eating hippies or lazy slobs who just want to suck on the governmentâs teat their taxes are paying for, they are reducing a complicated group of people into a caricature which is easy to dismiss any empathy or understanding for.
Ugh, looking at that figures I can only think of Samantha Beeâs closing line on Kasich: âSo, Republicans might want to take another look at Kasich, because while Trump and Cruz are promising to do terrible things, Kasich gets Terrible things done.â
(For clarity, Iâm not saying âThose Republican women donât know whatâs good for them and why donât they support who I say they should supportâ. I do think Kasich has an unearned reputation as a ''moderate" but I have to imagine a lot of women who support candidates who would attack womenâs rights actually want a candidate who would attack womenâs rights)
Okay, but thatâs not I see you doing here. Seems to me that youâve mostly been responding in this thread to criticism of Trump and of conservative ideas with replies that ânot all Trump fans and conservatives believe all conservative ideas.â
I do agree that observations from the anti-Trump side of the fence often caricature Trump fans in unsympathetic (mostly classist) ways, but I donât seem much of that happening here.
I think youâre trying to say âpeople are more complex than the caricatures that often get used to lazily describe themâ to a bbs crowd that pretty much already knows that.
If you follow the thread of conversation specific to diverging from talking about Turmp to conservatives in general: someone made a comment about knowing a lesbian couple who were Trump supporters and others wondered how they and others could support parties thought to be detrimental to their well being.
I posted my experience of knowing gay and transgendered conservatives and offered some insight. They obviously donât always agree with everything the Republican party does or the attitude some its members have about them. But they do agree with the ideals of conservative government (i.e. smaller federal powers, more state powers, etc). They support conservative politicians then because the big picture is the most important for the nation. They figure that they will be accepted by society and Republicans eventually as social norms change. They also act as a bridge of understanding exposing people to others who are like minded, yet different.
Someone else posted lots of laughter, saying that statement wasnât going to work out so well, "Because conservative thought has obviously done that with regard to women as a whole. " I disagreed that conservatives were somehow anti-women or not accepting of women. Certainly the views of women have changed dramatically in the last 50 or 60 years and recent polls show young Republicans are more accepting of gays showing that yes, though slower, conservatives are moving with the rest of society to be more accepting over all.
The definition of a conservative is someone who thinks he has always believed, what he considered to be radical nonsense twenty five years ago.
The definition of a neoliberal is someone who has always believed what gives the best return on his investment. If itâs slavery, well, slavery is a kind of free market, right?
The definition of a fundamentalist is someone who believes what is written in a book regardless of external evidence. If the book contradicts itself, go with the option that gives the most power over women and minorities.
The Venn diagram consists of circles which overlap, but Trump seems to be in the pure neoliberal region whereas Cruz is in both the neoliberal and the fundamentalist regions. I suspect there are a lot of Republican voters who only fit in my first circle - but they donât realise that for many of their leaders that is the unimportant one.
Where do anarcho-communist autonomous collectives fit into this? I expect they wonât react well to the suggestion that they are some kind of ideal of conservative government, I know Iâd react with laughter if I was called conservative (Then eventually anger if they continued to do so).
But as I have said numerous times before, Conservatives and Libertarian-Capitalists in the US have a very strong interest in not letting people know that there is such a thing as Libertarian Socialism. To be fair, so do the Democrats (who are also conservative at the party leadership level).
There are a lot of splinter anarchist movements/subfacets, most with minuscule memberships, few with the ability to compellingly persuade Americans that anarcho-whateverism is a great thing. I donât think the GOP and Democrats actively suppress knowledge of them or are even aware of them (in this day and age) so much as the tiny handful of them left are barely noticed any more than the Trots or other radical leftist movements are.
From Umberto Ecoâs frequently reposted article on fascism:
Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view â one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
In a functioning democracy, votes are counted, and whichever side has the most votes prevails. If you fail to vote, no one can legitimately claim to be speaking for your interests. Invoking the silent majority is a claim to speak for the common will without the bother of an election.
The republicans have been running a series of jokes for president for the past three primaries. I can see it happening once on accident but three times stretches my credulity.
The second time they dodged a bullet and went âOh thank GOD we still have Romneyâ they should haveâif they actually caredâtook serious stock and made sure they didnât run another joke primary. At this point, Iâm forced to conclude that the party leadership either wants to run a joke for president or canât find a serious candidate who is also capable of appealing to their base.
Iâm sure itâs not the clown party they were hoping for but it sure is the clown party theyâve been making down payments on.
