cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
eyup.
Fascism and the Republican Party
- Thread starter Fogdog
- Start date
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
It's them again.
Somebody posted a NOVA documentary without the paywall that covers what happens when science meets creationism/intelligent design in a courtroom where people have to conduct an honest debate that is meticulously documented. Every argument made by the ID folks was shot down with clear evidence that the jury found convincing. It's a long show. Science is like that. Doesn't fit in 10 minute packages, much less the 1 minute bite that Christiofascists use to pump their drivel onto the internet.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Thanks for this.
Some of the fallacious arguments put forth by the church’s pet scientists remind me of the heady days when we went around &around with the antivax contingent and their men of straw and fresh-picked cherries.
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
Cucker Farlson interviews the Dugin (the ult facist in putins ear)
cepa.org
Tucker Carlson and ‘Putin’s Rasputin’ Enter the US Living Room
The American TV interviewer, Tucker Carlson, came to listen not to judge, says Russia’s leading fascist, Alexander Dugin.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
This also belongs in the police interactions thread or maybe the thread about the campus protests but I think maybe this one because it's discussing the trend toward a police state from somebody who lived in one before they left Turkey pre-9/11. She documents the drift toward ever-increasing police actions and acceptance of it by many in the public, leading to excessive force being taken as a good thing in the recent protests against US military support for Israel as it does what it is doing in Gaza.
I Was Once a Student Protester. The Old Hyperbole Is Now Reality.
What protests in Texas once looked like:
Two police cars idled across the street from the protest rally I was attending in front of the State Capitol in Austin, Texas, their red and blue lights flashing but their sirens silent. The police seemed more bored than annoyed. It was the early 2000s, and I had recently moved from Turkey to study at the University of Texas.
My fellow protesters were outraged. “This is what a police state looks like!” they started chanting. I turned around, bewildered. Turkey was still emerging from the long shadow of the 1980 coup.
What it now looks like
At the University of Virginia, in Charlottesville, state police officers in riot gear carrying M4 carbines — the kind of weapons used in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan — and chemical-gas launchers were called in to disperse what many onlookers described as a small, peaceful group with a handful of tents. “None of these folks showed up when I lived on campus and white supremacists with tikki torches yelling ‘Jews will not replace us’ marched through campus as I hid my three kids,” Chad Wellmon, an associate professor at the university, wrote on social media.
At Dartmouth, police officers in riot gear were called in within hours after an encampment formed; in the ensuing confrontation they grabbed Annelise Orleck, the 65-year-old historian and former chair of Jewish studies, slammed her to the ground and arrested her. Until the Dartmouth community howled its objection, she was briefly banned from the campus where she had been teaching for 34 years. She still faces charges of criminal trespass.
At the University of Texas at Austin, officers in riot gear marched into campus on horses like the cavalry heading into war. At Indiana University, state police snipers were positioned on the roofs of campus buildings. Campus after campus is hosting similar scenes, including many pre-dawn raids on sleeping students. At Columbia University, an officer fired a gun. The N.Y.P.D. said it was an accident, and luckily nobody got hurt, but it’s not a comforting development.
So, that's the main point of this post. The crackdowns on campuses all in the name of protecting Jewish people and property is not justified. The extreme actions by police and in the case of UCLA, right wing radical thugs, are (IMO) deliberate acts that are fuel on the flames and not the acts of peace officers.
A second point/observation from this is:
A site that I listen to, https://www.thebulwark.com/listen
They see Trump as a threat alright but they are emphasizing the horrible "antisemitism" they see present in these protests as justification for police brutality. These are Never-Trumpers who are doing good work to try to convince conservatives to vote against their tribe because they see Trump as a threat to democracy. Their leaders are Romney, Liz Cheney, others who got us into the war on Iraq and still think GW Bush was a good president. What they don't see is that they aren't all that removed from Trump as they say MAGA Trumpers are. These are the "moderate conservatives" who sit to the right but are not the radical right that MAGA is. And not a threat to democracy. That is how they perceive themselves but are they really that? They are the ones who brought us these police and armed them. They are supporting their actions using the fake claims that fascist propaganda has drummed up regarding threats to the safety of students and overblown reports of property damage.
An enemy of my enemy is my friend and so I'm glad they are helping to get Trump out power. But really, the if Republican Party returns to it's pre-MAGA roots, it will just create another fascist leader. Because, that's what they are, whether they see themselves as that or not.
I Was Once a Student Protester. The Old Hyperbole Is Now Reality.
What protests in Texas once looked like:
Two police cars idled across the street from the protest rally I was attending in front of the State Capitol in Austin, Texas, their red and blue lights flashing but their sirens silent. The police seemed more bored than annoyed. It was the early 2000s, and I had recently moved from Turkey to study at the University of Texas.
My fellow protesters were outraged. “This is what a police state looks like!” they started chanting. I turned around, bewildered. Turkey was still emerging from the long shadow of the 1980 coup.
What it now looks like
At the University of Virginia, in Charlottesville, state police officers in riot gear carrying M4 carbines — the kind of weapons used in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan — and chemical-gas launchers were called in to disperse what many onlookers described as a small, peaceful group with a handful of tents. “None of these folks showed up when I lived on campus and white supremacists with tikki torches yelling ‘Jews will not replace us’ marched through campus as I hid my three kids,” Chad Wellmon, an associate professor at the university, wrote on social media.
At Dartmouth, police officers in riot gear were called in within hours after an encampment formed; in the ensuing confrontation they grabbed Annelise Orleck, the 65-year-old historian and former chair of Jewish studies, slammed her to the ground and arrested her. Until the Dartmouth community howled its objection, she was briefly banned from the campus where she had been teaching for 34 years. She still faces charges of criminal trespass.
At the University of Texas at Austin, officers in riot gear marched into campus on horses like the cavalry heading into war. At Indiana University, state police snipers were positioned on the roofs of campus buildings. Campus after campus is hosting similar scenes, including many pre-dawn raids on sleeping students. At Columbia University, an officer fired a gun. The N.Y.P.D. said it was an accident, and luckily nobody got hurt, but it’s not a comforting development.
So, that's the main point of this post. The crackdowns on campuses all in the name of protecting Jewish people and property is not justified. The extreme actions by police and in the case of UCLA, right wing radical thugs, are (IMO) deliberate acts that are fuel on the flames and not the acts of peace officers.
A second point/observation from this is:
A site that I listen to, https://www.thebulwark.com/listen
They see Trump as a threat alright but they are emphasizing the horrible "antisemitism" they see present in these protests as justification for police brutality. These are Never-Trumpers who are doing good work to try to convince conservatives to vote against their tribe because they see Trump as a threat to democracy. Their leaders are Romney, Liz Cheney, others who got us into the war on Iraq and still think GW Bush was a good president. What they don't see is that they aren't all that removed from Trump as they say MAGA Trumpers are. These are the "moderate conservatives" who sit to the right but are not the radical right that MAGA is. And not a threat to democracy. That is how they perceive themselves but are they really that? They are the ones who brought us these police and armed them. They are supporting their actions using the fake claims that fascist propaganda has drummed up regarding threats to the safety of students and overblown reports of property damage.
An enemy of my enemy is my friend and so I'm glad they are helping to get Trump out power. But really, the if Republican Party returns to it's pre-MAGA roots, it will just create another fascist leader. Because, that's what they are, whether they see themselves as that or not.
Last edited:
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
From Hannah Arendt in her treatise on totalitarianism, and how it is distinct from mere autocracy.
Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty.
Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Pardon goes to a Texas man who killed a Black man for protesting the murder of Black men.
www.thebulwark.com
Daniel Perry and the Republican Meaning of "Law and Order"
In the Republican view, the purpose of the law is to inflict harm on your enemies.
Perry was serving a 25-year sentence after being convicted of the murder of Garrett Foster. This case is an almost perfect distillation of what Republicans mean when they talk about “law and order.”
On July 25, 2020 Garrett Foster—a retired Air Force veteran—was attending a protest in Austin. Foster was open-carrying a rifle, as is legal under Texas law.
Daniel Perry was driving a car when he encountered this protest. He sped through a red light and accelerated his car into a group of protesters, one of whom was Whitney Mitchell. Mitchell—who was Foster’s fiancé—was in a wheel-chair. (She is a quadruple amputee.)
Foster approached Perry’s vehicle in an attempt to get him to stop ramming pedestrians. His firearm was in a safe position: Safety on, no round in the chamber, and pointed at the ground. Perry shot Foster five times. Foster died.
The case had everything Republicans love: A peaceful protest with people exercising their First Amendment rights. A veteran lawfully exercising his Second Amendment right. And before the murder the killer had been searching the internet for young girls and sending sexually explicit texts to a minor.
The only problem was the protest itself: It was a Black Lives Matter protest.
I'm sure Greg Abbot did not say that the first and second amendments didn't apply here, it did. What matters was WHO was excercising those rights, not that they applied.
The story doesn’t stop with Perry’s pardon.
In 2023, Abbott and the Republican Texas legislature passed a law which allows the state to remove from office “rogue” locally-elected district attorneys.
The public justification for the law was that some DA’s were too lenient on crime. Today the state is looking into removing José Garza, the DA who prosecuted Perry.
While pardoning Perry, Gov. Abbott claimed that Garza had “demonstrated unethical and biased misuse of his office in prosecuting Daniel Scott Perry.”
That's right, folks. Just like prosecuting the Jan 6 rioters and The Trump, prosecuting Perry was unethical and biased misuse of office because of who was prosecuted, who was injured and not the findings in a court of law, evidence, witness testimony or circumstances. They are innocent because Republicans want them to be held as such.
Texas Republicans are not content to allow Perry’s murder of Garrett Foster. They also want to send a message that even using the law to bring charges against members of the ingroup who kill members of the outgroup is verboten.
That is what “law and order” means to Republicans. And it is all perfectly legal.
Daniel Perry and the Republican Meaning of "Law and Order"
In the Republican view, the purpose of the law is to inflict harm on your enemies.
www.thebulwark.com
Daniel Perry and the Republican Meaning of "Law and Order"
In the Republican view, the purpose of the law is to inflict harm on your enemies.
Perry was serving a 25-year sentence after being convicted of the murder of Garrett Foster. This case is an almost perfect distillation of what Republicans mean when they talk about “law and order.”
On July 25, 2020 Garrett Foster—a retired Air Force veteran—was attending a protest in Austin. Foster was open-carrying a rifle, as is legal under Texas law.
Daniel Perry was driving a car when he encountered this protest. He sped through a red light and accelerated his car into a group of protesters, one of whom was Whitney Mitchell. Mitchell—who was Foster’s fiancé—was in a wheel-chair. (She is a quadruple amputee.)
Foster approached Perry’s vehicle in an attempt to get him to stop ramming pedestrians. His firearm was in a safe position: Safety on, no round in the chamber, and pointed at the ground. Perry shot Foster five times. Foster died.
The case had everything Republicans love: A peaceful protest with people exercising their First Amendment rights. A veteran lawfully exercising his Second Amendment right. And before the murder the killer had been searching the internet for young girls and sending sexually explicit texts to a minor.
The only problem was the protest itself: It was a Black Lives Matter protest.
I'm sure Greg Abbot did not say that the first and second amendments didn't apply here, it did. What matters was WHO was excercising those rights, not that they applied.
The story doesn’t stop with Perry’s pardon.
In 2023, Abbott and the Republican Texas legislature passed a law which allows the state to remove from office “rogue” locally-elected district attorneys.
The public justification for the law was that some DA’s were too lenient on crime. Today the state is looking into removing José Garza, the DA who prosecuted Perry.
While pardoning Perry, Gov. Abbott claimed that Garza had “demonstrated unethical and biased misuse of his office in prosecuting Daniel Scott Perry.”
That's right, folks. Just like prosecuting the Jan 6 rioters and The Trump, prosecuting Perry was unethical and biased misuse of office because of who was prosecuted, who was injured and not the findings in a court of law, evidence, witness testimony or circumstances. They are innocent because Republicans want them to be held as such.
Texas Republicans are not content to allow Perry’s murder of Garrett Foster. They also want to send a message that even using the law to bring charges against members of the ingroup who kill members of the outgroup is verboten.
That is what “law and order” means to Republicans. And it is all perfectly legal.
GenericEnigma
Well-Known Member
This truth goes all the way to the heart of our purpose here: cannabis.Pardon goes to a Texas man who killed a Black man for protesting the murder of Black men.
Daniel Perry and the Republican Meaning of "Law and Order"
In the Republican view, the purpose of the law is to inflict harm on your enemies.
Daniel Perry and the Republican Meaning of "Law and Order"
In the Republican view, the purpose of the law is to inflict harm on your enemies.
Perry was serving a 25-year sentence after being convicted of the murder of Garrett Foster. This case is an almost perfect distillation of what Republicans mean when they talk about “law and order.”
On July 25, 2020 Garrett Foster—a retired Air Force veteran—was attending a protest in Austin. Foster was open-carrying a rifle, as is legal under Texas law.
Daniel Perry was driving a car when he encountered this protest. He sped through a red light and accelerated his car into a group of protesters, one of whom was Whitney Mitchell. Mitchell—who was Foster’s fiancé—was in a wheel-chair. (She is a quadruple amputee.)
Foster approached Perry’s vehicle in an attempt to get him to stop ramming pedestrians. His firearm was in a safe position: Safety on, no round in the chamber, and pointed at the ground. Perry shot Foster five times. Foster died.
The case had everything Republicans love: A peaceful protest with people exercising their First Amendment rights. A veteran lawfully exercising his Second Amendment right. And before the murder the killer had been searching the internet for young girls and sending sexually explicit texts to a minor.
The only problem was the protest itself: It was a Black Lives Matter protest.
I'm sure Greg Abbot did not say that the first and second amendments didn't apply here, it did. What matters was WHO was excercising those rights, not that they applied.
The story doesn’t stop with Perry’s pardon.
In 2023, Abbott and the Republican Texas legislature passed a law which allows the state to remove from office “rogue” locally-elected district attorneys.
The public justification for the law was that some DA’s were too lenient on crime. Today the state is looking into removing José Garza, the DA who prosecuted Perry.
While pardoning Perry, Gov. Abbott claimed that Garza had “demonstrated unethical and biased misuse of his office in prosecuting Daniel Scott Perry.”
That's right, folks. Just like prosecuting the Jan 6 rioters and The Trump, prosecuting Perry was unethical and biased misuse of office because of who was prosecuted, who was injured and not the findings in a court of law, evidence, witness testimony or circumstances. They are innocent because Republicans want them to be held as such.
Texas Republicans are not content to allow Perry’s murder of Garrett Foster. They also want to send a message that even using the law to bring charges against members of the ingroup who kill members of the outgroup is verboten.
That is what “law and order” means to Republicans. And it is all perfectly legal.
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
imho that asshole needed to stay in prisonPardon goes to a Texas man who killed a Black man for protesting the murder of Black men.
Daniel Perry and the Republican Meaning of "Law and Order"
In the Republican view, the purpose of the law is to inflict harm on your enemies.
Daniel Perry and the Republican Meaning of "Law and Order"
In the Republican view, the purpose of the law is to inflict harm on your enemies.
Perry was serving a 25-year sentence after being convicted of the murder of Garrett Foster. This case is an almost perfect distillation of what Republicans mean when they talk about “law and order.”
On July 25, 2020 Garrett Foster—a retired Air Force veteran—was attending a protest in Austin. Foster was open-carrying a rifle, as is legal under Texas law.
Daniel Perry was driving a car when he encountered this protest. He sped through a red light and accelerated his car into a group of protesters, one of whom was Whitney Mitchell. Mitchell—who was Foster’s fiancé—was in a wheel-chair. (She is a quadruple amputee.)
Foster approached Perry’s vehicle in an attempt to get him to stop ramming pedestrians. His firearm was in a safe position: Safety on, no round in the chamber, and pointed at the ground. Perry shot Foster five times. Foster died.
The case had everything Republicans love: A peaceful protest with people exercising their First Amendment rights. A veteran lawfully exercising his Second Amendment right. And before the murder the killer had been searching the internet for young girls and sending sexually explicit texts to a minor.
The only problem was the protest itself: It was a Black Lives Matter protest.
I'm sure Greg Abbot did not say that the first and second amendments didn't apply here, it did. What matters was WHO was excercising those rights, not that they applied.
The story doesn’t stop with Perry’s pardon.
In 2023, Abbott and the Republican Texas legislature passed a law which allows the state to remove from office “rogue” locally-elected district attorneys.
The public justification for the law was that some DA’s were too lenient on crime. Today the state is looking into removing José Garza, the DA who prosecuted Perry.
While pardoning Perry, Gov. Abbott claimed that Garza had “demonstrated unethical and biased misuse of his office in prosecuting Daniel Scott Perry.”
That's right, folks. Just like prosecuting the Jan 6 rioters and The Trump, prosecuting Perry was unethical and biased misuse of office because of who was prosecuted, who was injured and not the findings in a court of law, evidence, witness testimony or circumstances. They are innocent because Republicans want them to be held as such.
Texas Republicans are not content to allow Perry’s murder of Garrett Foster. They also want to send a message that even using the law to bring charges against members of the ingroup who kill members of the outgroup is verboten.
That is what “law and order” means to Republicans. And it is all perfectly legal.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Leave it to Mike Johnson to say what we all knew Republicans were doing when they stacked that court with dominionists:
www.huffpost.com
The Supreme Court should intervene in former president Donald Trump’s business fraud case, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Friday after Trump’s conviction.
“I do believe the Supreme Court should step in,” Johnson said in an appearance on Fox News the day after Trump was found guilty Thursday
Mike Johnson Suggests SCOTUS Intervene In Trump Fraud Case
The House speaker says he thinks some justices are “deeply concerned” about the former president's trial and conviction.
The Supreme Court should intervene in former president Donald Trump’s business fraud case, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Friday after Trump’s conviction.
“I do believe the Supreme Court should step in,” Johnson said in an appearance on Fox News the day after Trump was found guilty Thursday
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Donald Trump reposts a profane, disqualifying threat against liberals
Opinion: Donald Trump should not have promoted a potentially dangerous, expletive-filled verbal ambush of MSNBC talk show host Joe Scarborough.
www.usatoday.com
(really bad expletive) made me lol. Wanna bet it rhymes with blunt?
More topically, it gives Judge Merchan one more log to put on the camel’s back leading up to the sentencing hearing.
It would be fascinating if the sentence for the 34 convictions was some form of probation — and an add-on of some jail time for multiple and serious violations of the gag order.