Most Americans, no matter their political affiliation, do not believe that violence is a solution to domestic political divisions, according to the latest PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll.
Why yes…yes I do. The Republican Party is the home of conservatism now. Conservatism’s goal is to destroy our country and create an oligarchy. This is done through both active and passive violence.
The goal of any conservative movement is to resist change. It’s in the name, and it’s the nature of people who are conservative. There’s nothing about “destroy” or “create an oligarchy” in it. Conservative is closer to the opposite of those. Also, there is very little active violence coming from conservatives, especially compared to progressive movements, and passive violence is a vague term that means whatever you want it to mean, according to your favorite niche cultural movement.
I feel like you are just throwing around terms without even understanding them or applying any critical thought to them.
Beginning with Reagan declaring war on higher education by forcing debt to be incurred by it so that only upper classes could be educated and protect their wealth up to now; " think tanks" pushing public policy to ONLY serve the wealthiest while shitting all over the middle and lower class; to using religion to control women and doom them to being nothing more than incubators; to militarizing the police and cheering for every murder they committed, ALL THE VIOLENCE IS FROM THE RIGHT. NONE AT ALL IS FROM THE LEFT. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH.
And now I know that you are part of the fascist brigade here.
Perhaps you could define some terms for me, starting with “violence”, but also “fascist” and “brigade”, because it’s almost like you think violence is any policy or speech you don’t like, and a fascist is anyone who disagrees with your politics. It’s hard to have a discussion when the terms are so subjective, and the condition for civil discourse is that I agree with you.
A classic radical fascist tactic is to claim that the other thinks fascism is “anything you don’t agree with”. Wrong. It has specific meanings demonstrated by specific policy positions.
“Violence” is anything that violates the rights of others. “States’ rights” is an excuse to allow violence through the tyranny of the minority, and us used to violate the rights of others. If the Constitution federallt protects the rights of an individual, “states’ rights” seeks to overrule those protections
Glad we can agree that there is an actual definition for fascism, even if you aren’t bothering to refer to it before leveling accusations.
Anyway the premise of states rights as opposed to Federal is that Federal laws should be very limited, aimed at protecting basic human rights, interstate infrastructure, and the military to protect the country as a whole. Then individual states can create laws that are highly applicable to their own issues, environment, culture, demographic, tax structure and so on. If a state gets virtually no tourism, but provides tons of food for the rest of the nation, then it is best served by a set of laws that are different from a state that relies upon tourism or business or manufacturing or retirees or whatever. The Federal government can’t possibly govern as well as the people in the state can govern themselves. Here you are preaching about fascism and in the same breath advocating for a strong central government. Are you just messing with me? Or are you about the other kind of authoritarian government? Answer this: are you ok with forcing other people to do and think as you do?
No, I’m not, which is why I brought up States’ Rights which is doing exactly that while the conservative federal government is abandoning it’s role to protect individual liberty. The States Rights issue stopped being economic long ago.
Why yes…yes I do. The Republican Party is the home of conservatism now. Conservatism’s goal is to destroy our country and create an oligarchy. This is done through both active and passive violence.
The goal of any conservative movement is to resist change. It’s in the name, and it’s the nature of people who are conservative. There’s nothing about “destroy” or “create an oligarchy” in it. Conservative is closer to the opposite of those. Also, there is very little active violence coming from conservatives, especially compared to progressive movements, and passive violence is a vague term that means whatever you want it to mean, according to your favorite niche cultural movement.
I feel like you are just throwing around terms without even understanding them or applying any critical thought to them.
Beginning with Reagan declaring war on higher education by forcing debt to be incurred by it so that only upper classes could be educated and protect their wealth up to now; " think tanks" pushing public policy to ONLY serve the wealthiest while shitting all over the middle and lower class; to using religion to control women and doom them to being nothing more than incubators; to militarizing the police and cheering for every murder they committed, ALL THE VIOLENCE IS FROM THE RIGHT. NONE AT ALL IS FROM THE LEFT. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH.
And now I know that you are part of the fascist brigade here.
Perhaps you could define some terms for me, starting with “violence”, but also “fascist” and “brigade”, because it’s almost like you think violence is any policy or speech you don’t like, and a fascist is anyone who disagrees with your politics. It’s hard to have a discussion when the terms are so subjective, and the condition for civil discourse is that I agree with you.
A classic radical fascist tactic is to claim that the other thinks fascism is “anything you don’t agree with”. Wrong. It has specific meanings demonstrated by specific policy positions.
“Violence” is anything that violates the rights of others. “States’ rights” is an excuse to allow violence through the tyranny of the minority, and us used to violate the rights of others. If the Constitution federallt protects the rights of an individual, “states’ rights” seeks to overrule those protections
Glad we can agree that there is an actual definition for fascism, even if you aren’t bothering to refer to it before leveling accusations.
Anyway the premise of states rights as opposed to Federal is that Federal laws should be very limited, aimed at protecting basic human rights, interstate infrastructure, and the military to protect the country as a whole. Then individual states can create laws that are highly applicable to their own issues, environment, culture, demographic, tax structure and so on. If a state gets virtually no tourism, but provides tons of food for the rest of the nation, then it is best served by a set of laws that are different from a state that relies upon tourism or business or manufacturing or retirees or whatever. The Federal government can’t possibly govern as well as the people in the state can govern themselves. Here you are preaching about fascism and in the same breath advocating for a strong central government. Are you just messing with me? Or are you about the other kind of authoritarian government? Answer this: are you ok with forcing other people to do and think as you do?
No, I’m not, which is why I brought up States’ Rights which is doing exactly that while the conservative federal government is abandoning it’s role to protect individual liberty. The States Rights issue stopped being economic long ago.
You can’t weaken the federal government and be a fascist at the same time.
Sure you can. What you’re doing is removing federal protections of individuals so that states can fasciststially abuse them without consequence.
Wanna explain why Louisiana is planning to criminalize librarians and how that isnt fascism at all?