The Republican Utopia

[Moiraine]

It's quite possible they had specific Russian targets for surveillance and learned who they were calling. Recording Americans doesn't mean they were the original target.

[knapplc]

I wonder if these are the paid protesters we've heard so much about. Is everyone who complains to/about a Republican office holder a paid protester?

 

[Landlord]

snowflakeeeeee

[Husker Red Til Dead]

 

I refuse to believe that to have security, there needs to be infringement of liberty and freedom.

 

Alas, I have but one +1 to give, it is yours!

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

The Turtle is not alone. He's joined in his cowardice by a lot of his colleagues.

[Making Chimichangas]

 

 

The Turtle is not alone. He's joined in his cowardice by a lot of his colleagues.

 

@dudeguyy, I find your post extremely interesting.

 

While I certainly, on a personal level, understand not wanting to confront an angry mob...

 

I am wondering, is it republicans, in republican districts, who are angry? Is it the democrat minority in the republican district? Is it a mixture? Is there consensus about the anger, or is it countless different agendas?

 

Because obviously, in democrat controlled districts, there is going to be a lot of anger towards republicans (see what is happening in California for example).

 

My goodness, this could literally be its own thread...LOL.

 

I ask these questions, because: if there is wide spread anger on the part of rank and file republicans that they didn't vote for Trump and his band of corrupt, white nationalist, and they want to voice their objections to the extreme, right wing agenda of polluting the environment, cutting over-time, relaxing oversight to make political corruption easier, then I may owe many rank and file republicans an apology.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

 

The Turtle is not alone. He's joined in his cowardice by a lot of his colleagues.

 

@dudeguyy, I find your post extremely interesting.

 

While I certainly, on a personal level, understand not wanting to confront an angry mob...

 

I am wondering, is it republicans, in republican districts, who are angry? Is it the democrat minority in the republican district? Is it a mixture? Is there consensus about the anger, or is it countless different agendas?

 

Because obviously, in democrat controlled districts, there is going to be a lot of anger towards republicans (see what is happening in California for example).

 

My goodness, this could literally be its own thread...LOL.

 

I ask these questions, because: if there is wide spread anger on the part of rank and file republicans that they didn't vote for Trump and his band of corrupt, white nationalist, and they want to voice their objections to the extreme, right wing agenda of polluting the environment, cutting over-time, relaxing oversight to make political corruption easier, then I may owe many rank and file republicans an apology.

 

 

That's a good question.

 

I think it's largely legit. Regardless, even if they're Democrats who are upset, are Republican members of Congress supposed to be absolved of representing their Democratic constituents, or vice versa? I certainly think they should be accountable to everybody they represent and not just the members of their own party.

 

They're seeing the Tea Party effect in reverse. I think those that are Democrats or just PO'd independents or even unhappy conservatives are just learning to coordinate better to turn people out for these things and pressure politicians.

 

Unfortunately the politicians seem to have taken the tack that it's all fake and these people are either paid or bussed in from somewhere. That's certainly the line Chaffetz used. I think they say that because it's easy and they're cowards, but regardless, that's not a claim they can back up with anything.

 

I did read a WaPo piece today where a pollster interviewed 8 on the fence indies about Trump's first month. Every single one of them was worried or pessimistic to varying degrees. So there's that. Those will be the folks the either re-elect or oust him in 2020... assuming he gets that far. Those are the ones politicians and we as citizens should keep tabs on.

 

I tend to separate Trump's base from other conservatives and independents. I'd advise you do the same - it makes it easier to keep track of things, IMO.

[Danny Bateman]

So, some video just broke of this Milo guy from UC Berkley protests fame defending pedophilia. Feel free to remove it if you don't want this here, mods. Contains some NSFW language.

 

 

Gee, fresh of being named the keynote speaker at CPAC, too.

 

 

This is why I have such a problem with the leadership of the Republican party and the larger conservative movement. They're willing to crawl into bed (no pun intended) with a dbag like this just to sell some tickets and generate some buzz.

 

The hypocrisy is strong with them.

[Red Five]

This is a good read on Milo being invited to speak at CPAC and what it tells us about current day "conservatism". It is written by a self proclaimed conservative.

 

Why Conservatives Fell for Milo Yiannopoulos

CPAC is, by far, the largest gathering of conservatives every year. Thousands of young conservatives will flock to National Harbor in Maryland this week to hear speeches from conservative luminaries. What started as a small meeting of conservatives four decades ago (where Ronald Reagan was among the first to accept a speaking invitation) has turned into a huge annual spectacle.

 

Over the years, however, Reagan gave way to Ann Coulter (and a kid named Jonathan Krohn... and Sarah Palin with a Big Gulp...). Coulter gave way to Donald Trump. And then, for a few moments this week... Yiannopoulos.

 

But this isn’t just about Yiannopoulos. The invitation to speak at CPAC tells you all you need to know about the state of American conservatism and why it was so easily co-opted by Trumpism. So why was he invited in the first place? Yiannopoulos, like Trump, is a paradox. On one hand, he brings a certain cosmopolitan flair to a group of people accustomed to being thought of as unsophisticated; on the other hand, he reinforces every negative stereotype imaginable. I was among those who criticized CPAC’s decision to baptize Trump by inviting him to speak at its 2013 meeting. Now, that seems quaint. Once arguably too wonky and prudish, today’s conservatism, judging by CPAC’s invited speakers, is increasingly crude, vulgar, and lowbrow.

 

...

 

True conservatism has been replaced by a fetish for fighting political correctness. Along with a penchant for showmanship, this seems to be Yiannopoulos’s entire shtick―and it’s a good one. The enemy of your enemy is your friend, and since Yiannopoulos says horrible things about radical feminists and other annoying leftists, he is, ergo, a conservative hero. This was the initial message from Schlapp. Before rescinding Yiannopoulos’s invitation (in response to a critical tweet from conservative writer Jonah Goldberg), Schlapp said the “1st amendment is dead on campus. Conservatives should fight back. As radioactive as milo is he is fighting back.”

 

If “fighting back” means using the weapons of identity politics and victimhood is the name of the game, then Yiannopoulos is bulletproof. He’s gay and (he says) part Jewish (and he likes “ black dick,” so you can’t call him a bigot or a homophobe). He also has a British accent, which American conservatives mistake for sophistication, so he can’t be labeled a rube. He’s also a martyr who evokes sympathy when his intentionally provocative behavior sparks even more outrageous (and intolerant) behavior. Not only do these characteristics provide him cover to say anything outlandish he likes, they also provide cover for his fans. After the news broke that he had been disinvited to CPAC, Yiannopoulos posted a statement on Facebook. Quite tellingly, he begins by casting himself as both a sympathetic minority (a gay man) and a “child abuse” victim. The problem is that we too often confuse being politically incorrect with being a hero. It is one thing to defend someone’s right to say something vile; it is another thing to reward him for it.

[Making Chimichangas]

In this republican utopia there is no political correctness.

 

However, when I hear those on the right denounce political correctness, what I think they're really saying and meaning is:

 

"We want to be openly racist and bigoted, but not have to suffer any consequences."

 

That's why republicans want to pass the defense of the first amendment act currently, if I am not mistaken, working it's way through congress now.

 

This law would provide whites a shield for all their racism, bigotry, intolerance, and hatred because of their "sincerely held religious beliefs."

 

Imagine being one of these types of people: black, brown, trans, gay, an immigrant, etc. You walk into a pizza place to get something to eat. The owner, waitress, whomever, says: "We don't serve 'your kind' here, so leave."

 

(In reality, I am stating this in a G rating and not explicitly how it would actually go.)

 

Now imagine that after being insulted, after being dehumanized, after being discriminated against, there was absolutely no recourse for you. There was nothing in the law that could be done to make this situation right. That's what this first amendment act does, it gives religious bigots a shield to say and do whatever they want without fear of consequences.

 

The irony is, conservatives, for all their blowhard rhetoric about preserving freedom, are literally doing everything they can to eliminate it. And it's not just the first amendment defense act either. It's these anti-protesting bills, bills which make it more difficult to find out what they're doing.

 

It turns out, the "republican utopia" is looking a lot like a fascist, white, hetero, christian only, dystopia.

[BigRedBuster]

And....that's one big reason why I left the Republican party.

For the life of me, I can not figure out how any of that fits into a conservative movement. To be conservative, doesn't automatically make you have to be a bigoted jackass.

[Making Chimichangas]

And....that's one big reason why I left the Republican party.

For the life of me, I can not figure out how any of that fits into a conservative movement. To be conservative, doesn't automatically make you have to be a bigoted jackass.

I agree.

 

And, confession: I used to be a republican also.

 

The republican party, I think, became synonymous with bigotry and hate when large numbers of white southern democrats switched party affiliation. It was a gradual process, starting in the early 1990s and saw fruition in the last two years of the Obama administration.

 

I have proposed a solution: kick the religious zealots out of the republican party. How to actually do that?

[RedDenver]

 

And....that's one big reason why I left the Republican party.

For the life of me, I can not figure out how any of that fits into a conservative movement. To be conservative, doesn't automatically make you have to be a bigoted jackass.

I agree.

 

And, confession: I used to be a republican also.

 

The republican party, I think, became synonymous with bigotry and hate when large numbers of white southern democrats switched party affiliation. It was a gradual process, starting in the early 1990s and saw fruition in the last two years of the Obama administration.

 

I have proposed a solution: kick the religious zealots out of the republican party. How to actually do that?

 

This has been happening since LBJ passed the Civil Rights act.

[Making Chimichangas]

 

 

And....that's one big reason why I left the Republican party.

For the life of me, I can not figure out how any of that fits into a conservative movement. To be conservative, doesn't automatically make you have to be a bigoted jackass.

I agree.

 

And, confession: I used to be a republican also.

 

The republican party, I think, became synonymous with bigotry and hate when large numbers of white southern democrats switched party affiliation. It was a gradual process, starting in the early 1990s and saw fruition in the last two years of the Obama administration.

 

I have proposed a solution: kick the religious zealots out of the republican party. How to actually do that?

 

This has been happening since LBJ passed the Civil Rights act.

 

True. But it didn't really pick up steam until the 1990s. I remember watching news coverage of Reagan in 84, Bush 1 in '90, and the big question was, how will Republicans fare in the heavy democrat south?

[Moiraine]

Nebraska farmers were mostly Democrat too