I don't disagree. But I don't believe that means certainty of violence. A 50 year plan to get here was done strategically, politically. Trump brought out the blatant white supremacists, to be certain. But I don't think the entire party seeks to defend their beliefs with violence because they chose a different path to get here than that.
[Brazelton] Roe v. Wade
- Thread starter Dave
- Start date
Hey now, her campaign just says she “misspoke” while reading off a written speech.
Who hasn’t started talking about the importance of racial purity when they meant to comment on the sanctity of life, amirite? Happens to all of us.
figmentPez
Staff member
Sure are a lot of Republican politicians "accidentally" saying things that sound super fucking racist, and then quietly retracting them.
Golly, I wonder what could possibly caus.... Dog whistles. They're fucking dog whistles. They're signaling their White Nationalist base while still trying to fly below the radar of undecided voters. Anyone with half-a-brain can see what they're doing. It happens way too often to just be a mistake.
Golly, I wonder what could possibly caus.... Dog whistles. They're fucking dog whistles. They're signaling their White Nationalist base while still trying to fly below the radar of undecided voters. Anyone with half-a-brain can see what they're doing. It happens way too often to just be a mistake.
The entire party doesn't need to be willing to resort to violence. If even a fairly small group - say 5% of Republican voters - are willing to take up arms to "defend" their rights, that is more than enough to set off chain reactions. And a far, far greater group would be willing to stand by and allow it, because they genuinely believe these are freedom fighters.
See: literally every other militant terrorist group or fascist/nationalist coup, from Hitler through Erdogan over the Taliban to the Sovjets in 1917.
‘The dog that caught the car’: Republicans brace for the impact of reversing Roe
Everything was going right for Republicans in the midterm campaign. Then the Supreme Court decision came down.
www.politico.com
...what diners are you going into, Dave? More importantly, what diners aren't you going into?
Because it doesn't matter where _I_ go...diner, store, gas station, work, even the parking lot, you name it--you better believe people are talking about it.
--Patrick
I'm currently on vacation in very Catholic and rural Tenerife and people here are talking about it.
‘The dog that caught the car’: Republicans brace for the impact of reversing Roe
Everything was going right for Republicans in the midterm campaign. Then the Supreme Court decision came down.
...what diners are you going into, Dave? More importantly, what diners aren't you going into?
Because it doesn't matter where _I_ go...diner, store, gas station, work, even the parking lot, you name it--you better believe people are talking about it.
--Patrick
A slippery slope argument is not going to convince me that violence is a certainty.
I already said I wouldn't be surprised too.
figmentPez
Staff member
They didn't choose a different path. The plan includes violence. Just like the Nazis' plans included violence. They know that to achieve a fascist state that they will have to become violent, and they are fully prepared for that violence. They are doing pretty much all the same things that the Nazis did in the past. How do you think this is going to play out if it doesn't result in christofascists trying to gain power by violent force? They've been grooming angry young men specifically for the purpose of having a gun-toting group of violent hotheads who believe that they have to use violence to save the nation.
This isn't a "slippery slope" argument. It's an argument from the history that Republicans are blatantly telling you they are trying to reenact.
Which is a reason why there's been a rise in membership of organizations like the Pink Pistols, groups like Liberal Gun Owners, and minority groups owning guns. I came out as bi on Facebook 7 years ago. Even though things were looking decent for acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community at the time, history has shown that things can sometimes turn on a dime. I was aware of the risk at the time I did it. Anyone wanting to raid my home in the middle of the night better hope they're a better shot than I am, because I absolutely will thin that crowd before I'm taken out.
I sincerely hope you will never have to.
For years now, they have been like a dog in an unfenced yard which strains at the limit of its leash to bark aggressively at everyone who passes by, and which has already bitten a few who did not know how far the leash would reach. Saying that "violence is not a certainty" is like saying, "That leash looks sturdy enough."
This is not a slippery slope argument where the reason they are not being (overtly and/or widely) violent is because they have not been pushed/oppressed far enough to start their violence engines. Those engines are already running. Their exhausts are already snarling. The tires are spinning and we can audibly hear them squealing eagerly on the pavement. The only tether still holding them at the starting line is the knowledge/threat that public sentiment/decency is such that somebody out there will still seek to hold them responsible and try to prosecute if their actions are too public and too blatantly "not an accident." But once that last tether is gone (either due to policy/law changes or due to the confidence of sufficient numbers), you can 100% bet they are going to instantly leap over that line because the only thing they're going to care about is doing whatever it takes to win the Race.
--Patrick
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
^ This. I think about this all the time, as I meet people in my line of work (some are clients, or work for clients, or work for the same company I do) that are not the least bit ashamed to say things unprompted like:
"I was in the marines but I got out because it didn't look like they were going to have a war for me to fight in." This mid-20s guy's primary reason for leaving the marines was because it did not satisfy his professional need to kill people.
"I'm tired of the barrage of trans/gay stuff in every form of media I consume. You just can't get away from it. It's exhausting. Can't we just go back to being normal again? I'm tired of humoring the mentally ill. My 11 year old daughter has decided she's a lesbian because it's what the cool kids at school have decided is cool."
"Trump had some issues, sure, but he was the only thing stopping the democrats from completely ruining the country. We need him back pronto."
In their mind, violence was always an option, and not even of last resort. We only begrudgingly failed to stomp out the "domestic enemies of America" because we didn't want to put up with the hassle of being cancelled on twitter. Furthermore, trans and gay people don't deserve protection. In fact, we should beat the shit out of them until they're normal again. If they die during that, well, not like anything of value was lost. We've just tolerated them because we're nice, but that patience is about worn out. Can't say it out loud, but man, wouldn't everything just be better if all these LGBTQ people just went away? The Leopards-eating-faces party needs to hurry up and eat faces faster. Naturally, not OUR faces.
No amount of facts or reason sways them from this (they may even agree to your points and then promptly forget them overnight). They have a narrative in their head and it's what they stick with. It's kind of a political corollary to Planck's Principle: Nobody above a certain age actually changes their mind. They just die out and are replaced by younger people who may (or may not, in our case) have already decided something else is what's normal.
"I was in the marines but I got out because it didn't look like they were going to have a war for me to fight in." This mid-20s guy's primary reason for leaving the marines was because it did not satisfy his professional need to kill people.
"I'm tired of the barrage of trans/gay stuff in every form of media I consume. You just can't get away from it. It's exhausting. Can't we just go back to being normal again? I'm tired of humoring the mentally ill. My 11 year old daughter has decided she's a lesbian because it's what the cool kids at school have decided is cool."
"Trump had some issues, sure, but he was the only thing stopping the democrats from completely ruining the country. We need him back pronto."
In their mind, violence was always an option, and not even of last resort. We only begrudgingly failed to stomp out the "domestic enemies of America" because we didn't want to put up with the hassle of being cancelled on twitter. Furthermore, trans and gay people don't deserve protection. In fact, we should beat the shit out of them until they're normal again. If they die during that, well, not like anything of value was lost. We've just tolerated them because we're nice, but that patience is about worn out. Can't say it out loud, but man, wouldn't everything just be better if all these LGBTQ people just went away? The Leopards-eating-faces party needs to hurry up and eat faces faster. Naturally, not OUR faces.
No amount of facts or reason sways them from this (they may even agree to your points and then promptly forget them overnight). They have a narrative in their head and it's what they stick with. It's kind of a political corollary to Planck's Principle: Nobody above a certain age actually changes their mind. They just die out and are replaced by younger people who may (or may not, in our case) have already decided something else is what's normal.
Don't worry, I've already started putting signs up along the border that say Welcome to Mexico. That's keep em out for a few more hundred years or spiraling public education.
That is certainly the reality now. I definitely do not agree that this was the plan through the 80s, the 90s, and the 2000s.
Nah, this was always the plan, because the actual reason why the pro-life movement got started was because it was a more palpable rallying cry then the losing fight against desegregation: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/
And those people had resorting to violence as their 1st response (which is what eventually turned the public against them, which is also why they're downplaying it nowadays... lone wolves and antifa false flags etc).
Believe it or not, one argument from conservatives is that abortions constitute a genocide against black people. I don't agree but it is not an attitude of violence those particular conservatives are espousing.
And if we are sticking parties with their historical policies, Democrats are as, if not more, racist than Republicans. So that doesn't seem like a fruitful path of discussion.
figmentPez
Staff member
As always, their accusations say more about their own beliefs than their opponent's. Do you remember hearing the term "domestic supply of infants" recently? Republicans are decrying the lack of babies for good Christian couples to adopt. What they really want is white babies to adopt, and they're bothered because white people have abortions at higher rates than minorities. This is a two-fold fear for them. First, because they're afraid that white people will decline into being a numerical minority because of population decline, but also because adoption is a very lucrative industry, and they want to secure a "domestic supply of infants" to keep the adoption industry alive.
They jump on the "abortion is genocide" argument because they think their opponents will be as afraid of the idea as they are.
It ALL goes back to White Nationalism with Republicans, and a fascist belief system like that inevitably leads to violence.
Are you really going to go ahead with that bullshit? Just going to ignore "the big switch"? And that the Democratic party of a century ago is not the same party as the one called Democrats today?
That is entirely my point. The republican party of today is not the same as the one of 50 years ago either. If you say otherwise, then ignoring the sins of the democrats is just hypocritical.
As for this part, you are giving people like my cousin in law far too much credit in his deviousness on this issue.
Edit to clarify:I think he genuinely believes it is a crime against black people and not some way of tricking white people into having more babies.
Second edit: a quick Google search shows black Americans account for more abortions than white Americans, something like 38% vs. 33%
Last edited:
figmentPez
Staff member
I haven't said shit about the Republican party of 50 years ago. I am solely talking about the present Republican party.
figmentPez
Staff member
Wow, you mean a dumb-ass Republican is just repeating talking points he heard from propaganda? That never happens. *eyeroll* </MASSIVE SARCASM>
I have. Because my point hinges on the fight for overturning Roe being a 50-year concerted effort that was not first planned with violence in mind. It was a purely political and strategic one. It was NOT the "plan all along".
Post automatically merged:
Those...are the people in the Republican party. And they have beliefs...just as you do.
figmentPez
Staff member
You can't have it both ways. Either there was a 50-year concerted effort by a continuous leadership, and the party is the same party. Or there was no 50-year plan, what's going on now is without a plan stretching back that far, and the party is not the same.
Which is it? Is what's going on now the result of the same Republican party that was around 50 years ago? Or is there a different Republican party in control, and the plan is irrelevant?
Parroting propaganda isn't the same as having an informed opinion.
It is actually the first, although there has obviously been retirements and deaths and replacements in the party in that time. But what I don't believe is that the entire party had been replaced and that there are genuine ties to the original plans put forth 50 years ago within the party. Basically, I see fractures within the GOP.
GasBandit
Staff member
I don't think there's any pre-Southern Strategy republicans left. They're pretty much entirely onboard with nationalist white supremacy. Yes, there are undercurrents of racism left in the Democrat party, but it's the far softer racism of lowered expectations. The "you can't take care of yourself or make your own decisions" kind.
But in a contest of the White Man's Burden vs The Final Solution, it's a pretty easy call which is more abhorrent... which one is addressable through civil methods, and which probably isn't.
As for Roe, it's been a dividing lynchpin since it was first handed down, as is often the case with legislation from the bench. The whole weakness of RvW was that it was not passed as law, it was decided by the supreme court. This is how democrats get policy enacted that they know won't actually make it through congress (it's also their primary method of trying to undermine the 2nd amendment without repealing it, because they know they have never had the votes), and they're learning that this is a sword that cuts both ways now that ultraconservatives control the supreme court. Every waking moment has been one side seeking to enshrine RvW, with the other endlessly attempting to undermine it. Even I used to joke 20-25 years ago how "No democrat will confirm any judge who doesn't perform a partial-birth abortion live on the Senate Floor." Somewhere they seemed to stop sticking to that particular set of guns.
I tend to think the Obama era made them complacent, while it galvanized and radicalized the reactionaries. The democrats, high off the heady scent of a black president, thought they'd "finally won," and could relax and take their victory lap. Meanwhile the republicans decided it was the point at which the mask of civility could be completely discarded and that never again would they engage in parliamentary democracy in good faith until all opposition to their supremacy had been eradicated.
And like I said before... aside from young firebrands like AOC and the rest of "The Squad," they will continue to hold meetings and breakout sessions where they were make points of order and issue statements of disappointment and denunciation until the boots are in the hall outside the door. After all, not only would it be uncouth, every democrat politician of any influence and standing is still too uncomfortable with the idea of those in power being held accountable for their actions to really put the energy behind saving the republic that is required. They would rather hope everything will work itself out than upset the apple cart, and possibly bring their own sins to light - and have them used against them.
Jan 6th was practice. It was our beer hall putsch. It did not fail, it was merely practice. Nobody of consequence has been held accountable for it, and when the midterms swing massively away from the democrats in 5 short months, that will be the end of it. Not only will republicans be untethered, all their street-level thugs and cultists will be emboldened to violence as never before.
But in a contest of the White Man's Burden vs The Final Solution, it's a pretty easy call which is more abhorrent... which one is addressable through civil methods, and which probably isn't.
As for Roe, it's been a dividing lynchpin since it was first handed down, as is often the case with legislation from the bench. The whole weakness of RvW was that it was not passed as law, it was decided by the supreme court. This is how democrats get policy enacted that they know won't actually make it through congress (it's also their primary method of trying to undermine the 2nd amendment without repealing it, because they know they have never had the votes), and they're learning that this is a sword that cuts both ways now that ultraconservatives control the supreme court. Every waking moment has been one side seeking to enshrine RvW, with the other endlessly attempting to undermine it. Even I used to joke 20-25 years ago how "No democrat will confirm any judge who doesn't perform a partial-birth abortion live on the Senate Floor." Somewhere they seemed to stop sticking to that particular set of guns.
I tend to think the Obama era made them complacent, while it galvanized and radicalized the reactionaries. The democrats, high off the heady scent of a black president, thought they'd "finally won," and could relax and take their victory lap. Meanwhile the republicans decided it was the point at which the mask of civility could be completely discarded and that never again would they engage in parliamentary democracy in good faith until all opposition to their supremacy had been eradicated.
And like I said before... aside from young firebrands like AOC and the rest of "The Squad," they will continue to hold meetings and breakout sessions where they were make points of order and issue statements of disappointment and denunciation until the boots are in the hall outside the door. After all, not only would it be uncouth, every democrat politician of any influence and standing is still too uncomfortable with the idea of those in power being held accountable for their actions to really put the energy behind saving the republic that is required. They would rather hope everything will work itself out than upset the apple cart, and possibly bring their own sins to light - and have them used against them.
Jan 6th was practice. It was our beer hall putsch. It did not fail, it was merely practice. Nobody of consequence has been held accountable for it, and when the midterms swing massively away from the democrats in 5 short months, that will be the end of it. Not only will republicans be untethered, all their street-level thugs and cultists will be emboldened to violence as never before.
No, but I think there are some mentees of that generation still. I've heard there are some people VERY uncomfortable with the direction the party has turned.
GasBandit
Staff member
Not uncomfortable enough to do anything about it.
Not publicly, at least. I'm not sure you or I would know about such things being handled privately. I see Pence as coming from the old school GOP, for example. My understanding is that Pence is no fan of Trump at all.
Privately, most of them have been quoted as hating Trump. But they had absolutely no qualms about riding his Tea Party cow-towing coattails to maintain and gain more power and money.
And Democrats are doing the same with the wingnuts on their end of the spectrum in order to keep their elite status.
And neither side is willing to piss off their overly-loud extremists in order to meet in the middle and actually get shit done like fucking adults. And the ones who do try are labeled "traitors" for doing so.
Party over people.
And Democrats are doing the same with the wingnuts on their end of the spectrum in order to keep their elite status.
And neither side is willing to piss off their overly-loud extremists in order to meet in the middle and actually get shit done like fucking adults. And the ones who do try are labeled "traitors" for doing so.
Party over people.
I don't think any of them are a fan of Trump, honestly. They only see him as a biddable figurehead, an easily manipulated stooge. A corpulent man-child who can be distracted with boobies and golf and told to sign ze papers or else the boobies and golf will all go away and wouldn't that be a shame? Here's a pen.
--Patrick
I swear, i posted this image here dozens of times:
But i'm sure this time they totally mean it, you guys.
Already answered on the sincerity bit.I swear, i posted this image here dozens of times:
But i'm sure this time they totally mean it, you guys.