What happens to the Republican Party now? (4 Viewers)

[MT15]

This election nonsense by Trump may end up splitting up the Republican Party. I just don’t see how the one third (?) who are principled conservatives can stay in the same party with Trump sycophants who are willing to sign onto the TX Supreme Court case.

We also saw the alt right types chanting “destroy the GOP” in Washington today because they didn’t keep Trump in power. I think the Q types will also hold the same ill will toward the traditional Republican Party. In fact its quite possible that all the voters who are really in a Trump personality cult will also blame the GOP for his loss. It’s only a matter of time IMO before Trump himself gets around to blaming the GOP.

There is some discussion of this on Twitter. What do you all think?

 

[samiam5211]

You are doing it again. I see a tendency among many to regulate and control speech.

You are stating that the collective culture of this forum thinks that some points I have made are racist. If I lived in a neighborhood like this forum I would have to learn to bite my tongue and not express my opinion. That is how it works, I understand your perspective. However, you guys do this at your own peril. Here are a few regrettable examples:

1. In the 14th century John Wycliffe was heavily censored by the Catholic Church for suggesting the Bible could be translated to English.

2. IN 1811 Percy Shelly was banned from Oxford university because he wrote an essay entitled "The Necessity of Atheism" .

3. A hundred years ago anyone would be scorned and censored by suggesting men could have sex with other men and women with women. The Chameleon, a magazine in 1894 managed to only publish one issue because they wrote about homosexuality.

This practice of censoring ideas is not new Sam!

You should stop telling me what i can or can't say.

The practice of censoring ideas is not new Paul!

 

[Taurus]

Yes. It's a classic - and typically alt-right, rather than moderate - argument, but it's not for freedom of speech, it's for freedom from consequence.

It usually goes like this: They express something racist, bigoted, or foolish - like, just for example, using 'poor', 'living in dysfunctional homes', and 'parents who don't care about their education' as euphemisms for 'African American', and then saying explicitly that African American boys should be taken away and tutored to be 'polite, educated, gentlemen' - and then when that's described, accurately, as racist and bigoted, they try to argue that the response is suppressing their speech.

Which it isn't, of course. The response is also speech. So even allowing for them talking about the general concept of freedom of speech, rather than the specific First Amendment right, the concept would apply both to the original bigotry, and to the rational response.

What they want is the right to say whatever racist, bigoted, foolish, nonsense they like, without being called on it, without consequence, and they want to be able to do it repeatedly and for it to be treated as something other than the bigoted racism it is.

And the answer to that is no.

The hypocrisy is the goal.

 

[Paul]

You should stop telling me what i can or can't say.

The practice of censoring ideas is not new Paul!

HA, ha!

It works both ways!

 

[samiam5211]

HA, ha!

It works both ways!

Or maybe it doesn't work either way.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You are doing it again. I see a tendency among many to regulate and control speech.

You are stating that the collective culture of this forum thinks that some points I have made are racist. If I lived in a neighborhood like this forum I would have to learn to bite my tongue and not express my opinion. That is how it works, I understand your perspective. However, you guys do this at your own peril. Here are a few regrettable examples:

1. In the 14th century John Wycliffe was heavily censored by the Catholic Church for suggesting the Bible could be translated to English.

2. IN 1811 Percy Shelly was banned from Oxford university because he wrote an essay entitled "The Necessity of Atheism" .

3. A hundred years ago anyone would be scorned and censored by suggesting men could have sex with other men and women with women. The Chameleon, a magazine in 1894 managed to only publish one issue because they wrote about homosexuality.

This practice of censoring ideas is not new Sam!

If all of your neighbors tell you that your opinions come across as racist, whether intentional or not, you also have the option of listening and empathizing. Instead, you would choose to keep your racist-sounding opinions to yourself.

 

[Paul]

Or maybe it doesn't work either way.

An acceptable word 10 years ago today is unacceptable today.

If all of your neighbors tell you that your opinions come across as racist, whether intentional or not, you also have the option of listening and empathizing. Instead, you would choose to keep your racist-sounding opinions to yourself.

That is a good point. However, who decides what is racist and what is not racist? The answer is the offended party. What happens if the offended party adds more and more to the list? What if not being racist is not enough? What if the offended party demands anti-racism? What if the offended party decides that thoughts may he racist? Do we call the thought police?

I fully understand that to pose these questions may be seen as racism.

The above does not mean racism does not exist. Racism is alive and well, but that is not the point. The issue is who decides what is racist or not?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

An acceptable word 10 years ago today is unacceptable today.

Why does it matter if a word that was acceptable in the past is no longer acceptable? As societies evolve, certain words and behaviors become unacceptable. Change is not bad.

That is a good point. However, who decides what is racist and what is not racist? The answer is the offended party. What happens if the offended party adds more and more to the list? What if not being racist is not enough? What if the offended party demands anti-racism? What if the offended party decides that thoughts may he racist? Do we call the thought police?

I fully understand that to pose these questions may be seen as racism.

The above does not mean racism does not exist. Racism is alive and well, but that is not the point. The issue is who decides what is racist or not?

The reason that it may be seen as racist to ask these questions is that these are the exact fears of casual racists everywhere. This goes back to my last point (that you completely failed to address). If you understand that something can be construed as racist- whether you meant it that way or not- why would you not stop so consider why and attempt to empathize with those around you?

 

[brandon]

I fully understand that to pose these questions may be seen as racism.

Or they just might be seen for the slippery slope fallacy that they are.

 

[Paul]

Why does it matter if a word that was acceptable in the past is no longer acceptable? As societies evolve, certain words and behaviors become unacceptable. Change is not bad.



The reason that it may be seen as racist to ask these questions is that these are the exact fears of casual racists everywhere. This goes back to my last point (that you completely failed to address). If you understand that something can be construed as racist- whether you meant it that way or not- why would you not stop so consider why and attempt to empathize with those around you?

OK CD, my response goes to you and to Sam . By the way this conversation belongs in the all things racism thread. I apologize as I tend to go on a tangent and go with the flow of the conversation. I am going to post my reply in that thread.

 

[MT15]

The story about playing show tunes for Trump to calm him down when he went on raging fits is from Grisham’s new book. There was a designated staff member, lol, expected to have show tunes at the ready.

 

[Maxp]

The answer to the OP is nothing. Nothing has changed about the direction the Republican has taken. All aboard the crazy train straight to authoritarianism. They can't win without their crazies even with all the gerrymandering and new election law foolishness.

 

[superchuck500]

The answer to the OP is nothing. Nothing has changed about the direction the Republican has taken. All aboard the crazy train straight to authoritarianism. They can't win without their crazies even with all the gerrymandering and new election law foolishness.

This week, in "Authoritarianism in plaint sight", GOP star-upstart JD Vance says the government should "seize assets" and tax those otherwise exempt organizations that have a liberal agenda.

J.D. Vance Says Government Should Seize Assets of Political Nonprofits

This week in the Republican-descent-into-batshit-authoritarianism beat: U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Vance tells Fox News host Tucker Carlson that the

reason.com

 

[MT15]

Yeah but socialism, lol.

 

[UriUT]

Yeah but socialism, lol.

Why are you poking the goofy bear? He may wake up and everyone in this site is dumber for having listened to the ramblings

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I disagree, there is a large silent minority that is essentially libertarian and the last thing they want is authoritarianism.

As much as I would like to believe that, the razor thin margin of the last election tells me otherwise. I cannot conceive of how any reasonable person would think it a good idea to put Trump back in the Oval Office.

 

[UriUT]

As much as I would like to believe that, the razor thin margin of the last election tells me otherwise. I cannot conceive of how any reasonable person would think it a good idea to put Trump back in the Oval Office.

And one can look at "libertarians" on this site and recognize the hypocrisy of their beliefs in freedom. Pointing to Poland as an example of government with less interference? Yeah if authoritarian means the opposite of what it means. May as well name Hungary or turkey. What this points out to me is that they want their choice of freedom for their kind only. Want abortion or women's rights? Errrrr...governments will and have the right. Ending discrimination? Errrr....only for the white male. Less interference towards the 1%....less interference please. Oh less I forget...have the government come and snatch kids away because of some perceived defect....right...capitalism and individual freedom much? The list goes on and on. Libertarian for those post Obama has been a buffet.

 

[Paul]

And one can look at "libertarians" on this site and recognize the hypocrisy of their beliefs in freedom. Pointing to Poland as an example of government with less interference? Yeah if authoritarian means the opposite of what it means. May as well name Hungary or turkey. What this points out to me is that they want their choice of freedom for their kind only. Want abortion or women's rights? Errrrr...governments will and have the right. Ending discrimination? Errrr....only for the white male. Less interference towards the 1%....less interference please. Oh less I forget...have the government come and snatch kids away because of some perceived defect....right...capitalism and individual freedom much? The list goes on and on. Libertarian for those post Obama has been a buffet.

¡That is the longest straw man in world history!

 

[Paul]

As much as I would like to believe that, the razor thin margin of the last election tells me otherwise. I cannot conceive of how any reasonable person would think it a good idea to put Trump back in the Oval Office.

I don't know anyone that wants Trump back. I am fine with Biden who is less racist than Trump. I don't even care that Biden messed up the exit from Afghanistan.