Quo Vadis GOP?

[alfred russel]

The dominant anglo-saxon culture felt threatened by the massive influx of latin american immigrants, and going into places where they only spanish spoken.
Ain't no difference than the tensions between Spanish and American settlers in Texas back in 1835.

That was more of a function that Mexico had abolished slavery in 1829, with an extension until 1830 for Texas, and the Texans refused to give up their slaves, in favor of rebelling against their rightful government.  This would not be the last time.

That is a perspective...but what sparked the 1835 rebellion was that Santa Anna suspended the constitution and several other Mexican states rose in rebellion in addition to Texas. Calling Santa Anna's government "rightful" is going a bit far.

[Razgovory]

St. Louis County health director says he faced racial slurs, was assaulted at council meeting

Councilman Tim Fitch made it a point to emphasize "for the assembled crowd that I was not from this country," Khan wrote. Khan has been a United States citizen since 2012 and has worked in public health for 25 years.

After Fitch's comment - and a social media post Khan saw later that night by Mark McCloskey about mask mandates being "un-American" - Khan said he heard people mocking his accent while he was presenting. He said people in crowd were doing their impersonation of The Simpson's character, Apu.

"While I was presenting my analysis of COVID-19 to the Council, two politicians (Mr. McCloskey and Paul Berry) seated right behind me consistently berated me and tried to distract me from my presentation," Khan wrote in the letter. "When I asked you to intervene to prevent Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Berry from interfering with my presentation, you lectured me – not them."

https://www.kmov.com/news/st-louis-county-health-director-says-he-faced-racial-slurs-was-assaulted-at-council-meeting/article_0cf3e388-f010-11eb-876b-4b598d4bc352.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share&fbclid=IwAR2_N9ARmRAV8vw89FtjnuLljsYAwIH9c4ueK74CBK8l-3HuRBA1wyjCohU

It's getting worse...

[grumbler]

I must admit that I don't understand the MAGAts' endgame in actions like harassing their county health commissioner through racist behavior.  Do they think that being racist will make non-racists vote for them?  Why would they need to be so openly racist to get the racist voters to vote for them?  Dogwhistles get the racist votes and fool some non-racists.

(MAGAt is my newly-coined term for what I have been calling Trumpeters; a portmanteau of MAGA and idiot that just happens to be pronounced almost the same as "maggot." ).

[Syt]

[alfred russel]

Berkut started a thread complaining about Republicans labeling Democrats as socialists, as socialism involves the control of the means of production by the state/community. While I don't think that is the only valid way to use the word socialism, and is not the most common, if you use that definition then medicare and medicaid are very much not socialist and there is nothing odd about that tweet.

[Berkut]

Berkut started a thread complaining about Republicans labeling Democrats as socialists, as socialism involves the control of the means of production by the state/community. While I don't think that is the only valid way to use the word socialism, and is not the most common, if you use that definition then medicare and medicaid are very much not socialist and there is nothing odd about that tweet.

Either you use the generic statement of socialism as being any kind of social spending, in which case the tweet is moronic because those things are already socialist, OR you use the more strict definition of socialism as being not about social spending, but rather about the state having some kind of ownership or control of the means of production, in which case social spending has nothing to do with socialism, and the tweet is moronic.

There isn't a way to interpret that so it isn't stupid.

[alfred russel]

Either you use the generic statement of socialism as being any kind of social spending, in which case the tweet is moronic because those things are already socialist, OR you use the more strict definition of socialism as being not about social spending, but rather about the state having some kind of ownership or control of the means of production, in which case social spending has nothing to do with socialism, and the tweet is moronic.

There isn't a way to interpret that so it isn't stupid.

Wrong. If you use the more strict definition, then you have a reason to not want socialism if you love the health care you are receiving through medicare or medicaid, because nationalizing the healthcare system would upend those systems.

[Sheilbh]

Berkut started a thread complaining about Republicans labeling Democrats as socialists, as socialism involves the control of the means of production by the state/community. While I don't think that is the only valid way to use the word socialism, and is not the most common, if you use that definition then medicare and medicaid are very much not socialist and there is nothing odd about that tweet.

Yeah - of course if you use that definition then the NHS isn't socialist because the NHS basically only runs hospitals (with consultants who have their own private practices) as all GPs are little small businesses paid for and operating in the NHS system.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Flippant, cheap response, but okay. Waiting for the rich and powerful to do something sounds very much like shrugging to me. That being said, I get the feeling it's your crowd? But maybe you are out there organizing and mobilizing, what do I know?

Organizing what?  Bergen County?  The tri-state area?  The problem doesn't lie there.  You might as well ask why the ordinary citizens of Bridgeport, CT in 1858 failed to convince southern planters of the virtues of abolition. It wasn't for lack of organization,

You know America is federal.  Sure I and others in "my crowd" have volunteered for election protection efforts in Florida and other vulnerable states in the past.  But as you point out in the other thread, the threat now goes well beyond what such measures can remedy.

Because of the nature of my profession, I've spent a decent amount of time in red states.  Since I'd like to think of myself as a persuasive and friendly person, if I had a few days to spend and nowhere else to be, I'd guess I'd have a decent chance of convincing one person to reconsider their views.  But realistically even that would likely be fruitless because the opinions of some northeastern pointy-head stranger aren't going to overcome the entrenched groupthink reinforced by close-by friends, family, and neighbors, all reinforced by an exclusionary sense of cultural identity.  Just look at your earlier post about a father choosing his deranged cult over his own son.  This is a sickness that discourse cannot easily cure.

If I focus on the rich and powerful it is for two very good reasons.  First, that in America money is the fuel that powers all political and cultural phenomena. When the money flows, the movement grows.  Cut if off and it struggles.  Big surprise, it turns out the rich and powerful have just a teensy weensy effect over flows of money.

Second - yes it is true that in my line of work I am more likely to come into regular contact with educated, rich and/or powerful Trump supporters than others.  You work with the material you have to work with.

I think a core issue is there's nothing for us sane people to fight against. People with crazy, irrational beliefs are all but impossible to persuade at scale. We can attempt to out organize them and out fundraise them. Going after corporate donors hard in the paint is probably one of the most time effective ways of directly undermining their funding, but it's only going to have so much impact, and as noted corporate donors often retreat to their old behaviors the moment the spotlight is off of them.

For those opposed to the GOP's current turn frankly our best option is to get our house in order, make sure we don't have shittily run campaigns--take a look at how Bill Nelson ran his reelection campaign or how the Biden campaign in Florida ceded almost the entire playing field in Miami to right wing Spanish language talk radio. These are bad examples of how to run campaigns. Biden's operations in Pennsylvania on the other hand are something we need to see more of, Democratic efforts in the Detroit suburbs, the WOW counties near Milwaukee etc. We basically need to not be own goaling, we need good candidates, and we need to hold on. That's the only real strategy. The hope is we hold onto enough power long enough that enough of this current crop of Republicans has died that this moment passes.

There's actually at least some positives among young Republicans, they often are less likely to hold some of the stupider views out there right now. There's even some positive to the uptick in minority support for the GOP, as that is likely to dampen some of the party's internal white nationalism.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Berkut started a thread complaining about Republicans labeling Democrats as socialists, as socialism involves the control of the means of production by the state/community. While I don't think that is the only valid way to use the word socialism, and is not the most common, if you use that definition then medicare and medicaid are very much not socialist and there is nothing odd about that tweet.

Yeah - of course if you use that definition then the NHS isn't socialist because the NHS basically only runs hospitals (with consultants who have their own private practices) as all GPs are little small businesses paid for and operating in the NHS system.

No one really uses that definition at all in politics, that's like gibberish academic quibbling. And Elise Stefanik is a well known complete idiot, AR has no real point here.

[viper37]

The dominant anglo-saxon culture felt threatened by the massive influx of latin american immigrants, and going into places where they only spanish spoken.
Ain't no difference than the tensions between Spanish and American settlers in Texas back in 1835.

That was more of a function that Mexico had abolished slavery in 1829, with an extension until 1830 for Texas, and the Texans refused to give up their slaves, in favor of rebelling against their rightful government.  This would not be the last time.

there were tensions between the two communities and many Tejanos, who fought with the Americans for the independance of Texas were forced to flee after the independance, due to increased political pressure against those who stayed, or outright violence. 

[viper37]

The dominant anglo-saxon culture felt threatened by the massive influx of latin american immigrants, and going into places where they only spanish spoken.
Ain't no difference than the tensions between Spanish and American settlers in Texas back in 1835.

That was more of a function that Mexico had abolished slavery in 1829, with an extension until 1830 for Texas, and the Texans refused to give up their slaves, in favor of rebelling against their rightful government.  This would not be the last time.

That is a perspective...but what sparked the 1835 rebellion was that Santa Anna suspended the constitution and several other Mexican states rose in rebellion in addition to Texas. Calling Santa Anna's government "rightful" is going a bit far.

I was referring to the events post 1835.
I agree that the revolution must be examined in a broader context.

[Valmy]

The dominant anglo-saxon culture felt threatened by the massive influx of latin american immigrants, and going into places where they only spanish spoken.
Ain't no difference than the tensions between Spanish and American settlers in Texas back in 1835.

That was more of a function that Mexico had abolished slavery in 1829, with an extension until 1830 for Texas, and the Texans refused to give up their slaves, in favor of rebelling against their rightful government.  This would not be the last time.

Texas obviously seceded in 1861 to protect slavery and because of their hatred and fear of abolitionists. How do we know this? Well because they said so. Repeatedly.

I am not sure how you can look at all he events in the 1830s and think it was that simple though, that Mexico said they had to give up their slaves and then they revolted five years later. I mean first of all the immigrants were not permitted to bring slaves into the territory to begin with, it was not like suddenly Mexico demanded they give up there slaves. And there were very few slaves in the territory in 1835 so sure it caused problems. There were stupid pro-slavery uprisings but that all happened prior to 1835. It took a little bit more than that to get the whole territory up in arms. And as you can read in the declaration of independence in 1835 slavery is not directly mentioned (though implied when it mentions "property"...but the reasons for not making a big deal about that are obvious as the slave owners had no legal leg to stand on everybody knew bringing slaves to Texas even before 1829 was illegal, the rest of the territory was not going to rise up to protect illegal slavery) Anyway because I am really really tired of refuting this I will just post this video every time this gets thrown around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDWH-DC74Pk

So...it's complex. But to say everybody rose up to enthusiastically protect slavery is just not true...in 1835. I mean it was obviously true in 1861 how you felt about slavery and how you felt about secession was virtually identical.

I don't even really think people are serious. They just like talking shit about Texas because we suck and keep voting for shitty Republicans. But why do people keep moving here though?

[ulmont]

I am not sure how you can look at all he events in the 1830s and think it was that simple though, that Mexico said they had to give up their slaves and then they revolted five years later.

Let's check in on the Texas constution of 1836 and see what they considered constitutionally important:

SEC. 9. All persons of color who were slaves for life previous to their emigration to Texas, and who are now held in bondage, shall remain in the like state of servitude, provide the said slave shall be the bona fide property of the person so holding said slave as aforesaid. Congress shall pass no laws to prohibit emigrants from the United States of America from bringing their slaves into the Republic with them, and holding them by the same tenure by which such slaves were held in the United States; nor shall Congress have power to emancipate slaves; nor shall any slave-holder be allowed to emancipate his or her slave or slaves, without the consent of Congress, unless he or she shall send his or her slave or slaves without the limits of the Republic. No free person of African descent, either in whole or in part, shall be permitted to reside permanently in the Republic, without the consent of Congress, and the importation or admission of Africans or negroes into this Republic, excepting from the United States of America, is forever prohibited, and declared to be piracy.

http://wheretexasbecametexas.org/texas-history/constitution-of-the-republic-of-texas-1836/

...and this is of course independent Texas, so that's straight up the Texas Congress they are forbidding ever freeing the slaves, not some DC body.  And of course, even a will freeing slaves is illegal under this constitution.

...and hilariously I see that at 11:15 of your video the slavery issue does get addressed and they talk about multiple rebellions against a post commander in Galveston for upholding abolition before noting (paraphrased) "and yeah, after this point, Texas was gonna rebel, it was only a matter of time and an excuse."

[Zoupa]

I must admit that I don't understand the MAGAts' endgame in actions like harassing their county health commissioner through racist behavior.  Do they think that being racist will make non-racists vote for them?  Why would they need to be so openly racist to get the racist voters to vote for them?  Dogwhistles get the racist votes and fool some non-racists.

(MAGAt is my newly-coined term for what I have been calling Trumpeters; a portmanteau of MAGA and idiot that just happens to be pronounced almost the same as "maggot." ).

They don't care about increasing their vote count. They came very close on January 6th without the votes.