EPTAt what point can we start calling the MAGA crowds a cult? They way they laugh and jeer at the mocking of a disabled reporter, to lauding a man who assaulted a journalist a week after a journalist was dismembered for speaking out against a tyrant, rushing to Trumps defense no matter how indefensible or blantantly false his position/statement, to the way they seem to take enjoyment in the debasing their enemies (lock her up), im left asking myself if this has moved beyond politics. When the merits of what Trump says no longer matter, and his position is defended solely because he is Trump, then, I think, we are moving into cult territory.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 872
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
At what point can we start calling the MAGA crowds a cult? They way they laugh and jeer at the mocking of a disabled reporter, to lauding a man who assaulted a journalist a week after a journalist was dismembered for speaking out against a tyrant, rushing to Trumps defense no matter how indefensible or blantantly false his position/statement, to the way they seem to take enjoyment in the debasing their enemies (lock her up), im left asking myself if this has moved beyond politics. When the merits of what Trump says no longer matter, and his position is defended solely because he is Trump, then, I think, we are moving into cult territory. | ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On October 26 2018 00:31 Mohdoo wrote: I don't think the civil war actually ever ended. All of the underlying issues causing the civil war were never dealt with. I would argue allowing for 2 completely distinct cultures to exist within the same country was a mistake that was going to boil over eventually. Trump's presidency has accelerated the boiling, but the culture war has been going this entire time. The underlying issues behind the Civil War have very little to do with what is happening now (except for African-American disenfranchisement and immiseration). | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On October 26 2018 00:31 Mohdoo wrote: Trump's base will just assume Trump uses it to confuse Russia and China so that they never know what is real and what isn't. They see the idea of an unsecured device as proof he's playing 4d chess. Edit, on a somewhat separate topic: I don't think the civil war actually ever ended. All of the underlying issues causing the civil war were never dealt with. I would argue allowing for 2 completely distinct cultures to exist within the same country was a mistake that was going to boil over eventually. Trump's presidency has accelerated the boiling, but the culture war has been going this entire time. Cant deny that it feels like it from outside. One thing that has definitely struck me talking to XDaunt and Danglars over in GH's blog, it's like they literally come from a different world where things just don't work the way I'm used to. It isn't so much disagreement as the things I say make literally no sense to them on any level, and vice versa. If that's reflective of the general trend of US political discourse now... well, we've all said it multiple times. How do you get back from that brink? Where is there to go but over the edge? It's so deranged now that actual bomb threats are dismissed as either fake or - even worse - actually done by the Democrats, not by Republicans. We don't know what's happened yet, but I sincerely doubt it's a false flag done by the government to stir up Democrats. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Just read the The Southern Manifesto of 1956 soon after Brown v the Board of Education. A call to action that lead a minority of senators and house members to derail civil rights efforts in the 1950s and 1960s, leading to the civil rights movement of that time. In this you can see the outline of the tactics use by McConnell and others to disrupt Obama and reap the rewards by stacking the judiciary. You can even see the long term plan to stack the court. It is how to use will of a minority population to assert power due to a single unifying issue. In that time, it was opposing the civil rights movement. Today, it was healthcare, then Obama himself and finally the enemy that is "the left". But in the 1950s, opposition to the civil rights movement found supporters in both Republicans and Democrats. It would be decades before the Democrats lost all their “Dixiecrats” to the Republicans. And the Republicans adopted the Southern Strategy, follow by the Contract With America. We are just seeing a continued saga of opposition to the Federal Government as the only entity that can force states adopt civil rights(race, gender, sexual orientation) reforms. That is why they call it the "culture wars" now, rather than states rights. But the culture they are protecting is the same one that resisted desegregation in 1956. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On October 26 2018 01:11 CosmicSpiral wrote: The underlying issues behind the Civil War have very little to do with what is happening now (except for African-American disenfranchisement and immiseration). I would argue the issues supposedly responsible for the civil war were birthed from the deeper, core philosophical disagreement. A social version of "might makes right" where people who do not do as well as others deserve to be where they are and a variety of other core ideas to conservatism are what made the civil war happen, in my eyes. It is more so about the deeper philosophies that led to things like slavery that are the actual issue. | ||
|
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On October 26 2018 01:16 Plansix wrote: You can trace the issues in the US all the way back to the first congress and why the capitol in DC and not New York. The conflict between the slave states and the north were drawn early, flowed in the Jackson era, through the civil, reconstruction and Jim Crow. Just read the The Southern Manifesto of 1956 soon after Brown v the Board of Education. A call to action that lead a minority of senators and house members to derail civil rights efforts in the 1950s and 1960s, leading to the civil rights movement of that time. In this you can see the outline of the tactics use by McConnell and others to disrupt Obama and reap the rewards by stacking the judiciary. You can even see the long term plan to stack the court. But in the 1950s, opposition to the civil rights movement found supporters in both Republicans and Democrats. It would be decades before the Democrats lost all their “Dixiecrats” to the Republicans. And the Republicans adopted the Southern Strategy, follow by the Contract With America. You're just naming vague talking points as if they are relevant. And the manipulation of SCOTUS nominations started far before the Republicans' current animus. Arguably both parties were alerted to the unabridged growth of SCOTUS power after Griswold vs Connecticut and Miranda vs Arizona and began quietly maneuvering candidates into position so they could exploit it. Only now has it become obvious that the Court is a battleground. Also let's not pretend the Republican Party is the sole transgressor here. Democrats crowed about SCOTUS throwing around its bloated weight to legalize same-sex marriage during Obama's second term. Specifically commentators claimed it was only right for the Court to wield its influence to push progress instead of, you know, doing its damn job. On October 26 2018 01:23 Mohdoo wrote: I would argue the issues supposedly responsible for the civil war were birthed from the deeper, core philosophical disagreement. A social version of "might makes right" where people who do not do as well as others deserve to be where they are and a variety of other core ideas to conservatism are what made the civil war happen, in my eyes. It is more so about the deeper philosophies that led to things like slavery that are the actual issue. If we pretend liberalism and conservatism never changed throughout time, sure, but that's retroactive application of modern-day definitions. You're also conflating conservatism with right-wing ideology. "Might makes right" is an offshoot of the right-wing ethos that social stratification is natural. Traditional conservatism is the closest analogue that embraces said belief, which is composed of a tiny subset of reactionaries who are rejected by mainstream conservatives. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On October 26 2018 01:26 CosmicSpiral wrote: You're just naming vague talking points as if they are relevant. And the manipulation of SCOTUS nominations started far before the Republicans' current animus. Arguably both parties were alerted to the unabridged growth of SCOTUS power after Griswold vs Connecticut and Miranda vs Arizona and began quietly maneuvering candidates into position so they could exploit it. Ideas like: 1. Intrinsic reverence for leaders and figures of authority 1A. Strongly identifying with leaders and figures of authority in a way where they feel empowered by these figures of authority and leaders 2. Unwavering support for law enforcement 3. Cultural distinctiveness and resistance to cultural exchange within the US from foreign cultures 4. Might makes right 5. Those who fail, failed naturally, and should be allowed to continue to fail until they succeed 6. Gender roles being a matter of nature rather than opinion Are all ideas that were present back then just as they are now. It is not that these are even really "conservative" ideas. They are more like a belief structure that naturally lends itself to conservatism. This set of belief seeds are what, in my eyes, is the actual disagreement. The modern day left basically disagrees with all of that. The two really just can't coexist in my eyes. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
On October 26 2018 01:26 CosmicSpiral wrote: You're just naming vague talking points as if they are relevant. And the manipulation of SCOTUS nominations started far before the Republicans' current animus. Arguably both parties were alerted to the unabridged growth of SCOTUS power after Griswold vs Connecticut and Miranda vs Arizona and began quietly maneuvering candidates into position so they could exploit it. Also let's not pretend the Republican Party is the sole transgressor here. Democrats crowed about SCOTUS throwing around its bloated weight to legalize same-sex marriage during Obama's second term. Specifically commentators claimed it was only right for the Court to wield its influence to push progress instead of, you know, doing its damn job. Why do you keep bringing up Warren court decisions as the starting point for "unabridged growth of SCOTUS power" when there is ample reason to set that trend far earlier? One can easily argue it began during the Lochner era or, as I believe, with Chisholm v. Georgia. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On October 26 2018 01:13 iamthedave wrote: Cant deny that it feels like it from outside. One thing that has definitely struck me talking to XDaunt and Danglars over in GH's blog, it's like they literally come from a different world where things just don't work the way I'm used to. It isn't so much disagreement as the things I say make literally no sense to them on any level, and vice versa. If that's reflective of the general trend of US political discourse now... well, we've all said it multiple times. How do you get back from that brink? Where is there to go but over the edge? It's so deranged now that actual bomb threats are dismissed as either fake or - even worse - actually done by the Democrats, not by Republicans. We don't know what's happened yet, but I sincerely doubt it's a false flag done by the government to stir up Democrats. I feel the same. Its like we're living in different worlds. However, I suppose this shouldn't be surprising since the opposing sides would have trouble maintaining themselves but for a strong sense of rationalization, real or imaginary. It just happens that Trump is allergic to facts so it doesn't help the Republicans current state of mind since they have to find a way to believe him else they be labeled RINOs. Also, so that's where all the cool kids have been hiding. I was wondering where GH, xDaunt, igne, and danglers ran off to. Turns out they moved their talking past each other (not a knock on them personally so much as an observation) to a new place rather than here. Edit: as I say this a wild igne appears! | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
Gingrich, speaking Thursday morning at an event hosted by Axios, said that he doesn’t believe Trump's description is helpful, but added that he thinks some news outlets' coverage is hostile. The former Speaker, a contributor to Fox News, highlighted CNN International, in particular, during his remarks. “There’s no more anti-American network than CNN International,” Gingrich said. Source: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/413110-gingrich-media-earned-being-called-enemy-of-the-people I wasn't originally happy with an opinion piece as the sole source, but axios website seems to confirm the gist of the talk: Speaking at an Axios event in Washington Thursday, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said that Trump's attacks on the media as "the enemy of the people" don't help improve the American political divide, but that he thinks "they've earned it." Source: https://www.axios.com/newt-gingrich-news-media-earned-enemy-of-the-people-6a2511cf-1226-4594-bb28-43d0e05ca030.html | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 26 2018 01:26 CosmicSpiral wrote: You're just naming vague talking points as if they are relevant. And the manipulation of SCOTUS nominations started far before the Republicans' current animus. Arguably both parties were alerted to the unabridged growth of SCOTUS power after Griswold vs Connecticut and Miranda vs Arizona and began quietly maneuvering candidates into position so they could exploit it. Only now has it become obvious that the Court is a battleground. Also let's not pretend the Republican Party is the sole transgressor here. Democrats crowed about SCOTUS throwing around its bloated weight to legalize same-sex marriage during Obama's second term. Specifically commentators claimed it was only right for the Court to wield its influence to push progress instead of, you know, doing its damn job. I'm uninterested in blame or both sides. I'm interested in talking about who is in power at this time and what their goals are. Like you said, in Obama's second term both parties crowed about the just action or overreach by the high court. But no one did there job to pass bills to address gay marriage. But at that time the Republicans owned the House and they would have been the ones to get that process started. The Republicans are very interested in controlling access to abortion and limiting the governments ability to regulate, which is why they have stacked the court in the manner it is today. | ||
|
pmh
1352 Posts
It is either brilliany or very stupid (from a spin doctos point of vieuw). Probably stupid, horrible situation. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 26 2018 01:35 Logo wrote: It's legitimately frightening how deeply entrenched the right is with this rhetoric and how little they're willing to give up their attacks. And don't be under any illusion it's just Trump and the general GOP is all to happy to get on and off the train as the political winds blow each way. They don't even appear to see the bombing as a cause for caution or a sign that they need to back off the rhetoric. Source: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/413110-gingrich-media-earned-being-called-enemy-of-the-people I wasn't originally happy with an opinion piece as the sole source, but axios website seems to confirm the gist of the talk: Source: https://www.axios.com/newt-gingrich-news-media-earned-enemy-of-the-people-6a2511cf-1226-4594-bb28-43d0e05ca030.html Although at some point the press needs too look long and hard about the sin of repeating the attack on them over and over and over and over. Fox News is not going to stop having Newt "Banged his mistress while shaming Bill for having an affair" Gingrich on their talking head shows. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
| ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On October 26 2018 01:47 Plansix wrote: Although at some point the press needs too look long and hard about the sin of repeating the attack on them over and over and over and over. Fox News is not going to stop having Newt "Banged his mistress while shaming Bill for having an affair" Gingrich on their talking head shows. Yeah for sure, I mean a whole part of why these attacks on the media are both so effective and so hard to combat is like well they're not entirely wrong. CNN is *awful* most media networks are *awful*, but the reasons the right uses are almost completely made up and it's pinned on a ridiculous convoluted theory of why. But if the press wasn't really willing to learn anything after 2016 (or more macabre after Sandy Hook) I'm not going to hold my breath. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21705 Posts
On October 26 2018 01:47 Plansix wrote: Not reporting on it isn't going to stop people getting indoctrinated by Fox.Although at some point the press needs too look long and hard about the sin of repeating the attack on them over and over and over and over. Fox News is not going to stop having Newt "Banged his mistress while shaming Bill for having an affair" Gingrich on their talking head shows. It just means everyone will be scratching their heads why, when something inevitably happens. As opposed to knowing whats going on. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 26 2018 01:51 Mohdoo wrote: As an addition to my feeling that the civil war has continued to be fought this entire time: the only people willing to participate are republicans. Democrats refuse to participate in the war while more and more conservatives understand the war is real and needs to be fought. As such, democrats are continuing to lose worse and worse because they aren't willing to fight, and more specifically, they aren't willing to recognize the extreme division that has created this war. Democrats are too docile and too spineless to admit the war of ideas needs to be fought as hard as we can. I think it is more than the Republicans and their backers have found a way to make opposition to Democrats and the left, for any reason, a driving force. And the foundation for that is a few unifying issues, guns, abortion, religion and anti-goverment. Democrats, as a whole, are not inserted in simply opposing Republicans in that same way. Or they lack the simplistic, yet unifying issues the Republicans have created. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On October 26 2018 01:53 Gorsameth wrote: Not reporting on it isn't going to stop people getting indoctrinated by Fox. It just means everyone will be scratching their heads why, when something inevitably happens. As opposed to knowing whats going on. If Fox is blatant propaganda and fear mongering, other news outlets don't need to legitimize their views by running the same stories even when they're otherwise insignificant and then doubling down on that by doing the whole "both sides" thing even when one side is a conspiracy or outlandish minority opinion. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On October 26 2018 01:56 Plansix wrote: I think it is more than the Republicans and their backers have found a way to make opposition to Democrats and the left, for any reason, a driving force. And the foundation for that is a few unifying issues, guns, abortion, religion and anti-goverment. Democrats, as a whole, are not inserted in simply opposing Republicans in that same way. Or they lack the simplistic, yet unifying issues the Republicans have created. I think this is a big part of it. But I also think democrats are plain and simply more motivated to unite with conservatives. Democrats always want unity with pretty much everyone. Republican core philosophy has the idea that "not all cultures get along and not all cultures SHOULD get along" built in. The idea that you plain and simply have some enemies and some friends is not a foreign idea to their culture. Democrats are hopelessly optimistic regarding unity and I think it ends up hurting our cause. | ||
| ||
