this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
465 points (98.1% liked)

politics

18993 readers
2305 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Newly elected House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) claims he does not remember “some of” the many, many anti-LGBTQ+ comments he’s made over the course of his career.

Johnson’s history of opposing LGBTQ+ rights has been well documented and stretches back to the early 2000s, when he worked as a senior attorney and national media spokesman for anti-LGBTQ+ hate group Alliance Defending Freedom (then called the Alliance Defense Fund). Between 2003 and 2005, Johnson also wrote several editorials for Shreveport, Louisiana, paper The Times, criticizing the Supreme Court for striking down anti-sodomy laws, opposing same-sex marriage, and arguing against non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 70 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Honestly? All Congressional Republicans are absolutely vile cretins. I'll take "Pretending to not be as vile as he is" over "Openly pushing his vileness to the max" at this juncture.

Just another year and a few months, I tell myself. Then the House will be blue again.

[–] TurnItOff_OnAgain@lemmy.world 31 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Nah, I don't want the pretending. At least when they are open about it it's easy to see and call out.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It’s the death of a euphemism when that happens and it’s rarely good. I want him speaking in euphemisms because it means he catches flak for outright saying what he wants.

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Gotta disagree, because it’s always seemed to me that the death of a euphemism theory is a bit off, in that it’s mistaking a road sign for an actual turn.

Yes, when that happens it portends bad things, but I’d argue the act of mask-dropping isn’t a catalyst but a high water mark. Normally when fascists drop the mask, it’s because they believe public sentiment is already so far in their favour that they no longer need to maintain appearances.

If they do it too early, they may lose their populist tide, which imo should be encouraged. Delaying it only pushes the peanut farther, allowing them to brainwash more people. eta: The problem will have to be dealt with eventually; best do it before they’re confident in their support.

(I think I’ve got most common metaphors out of my system now.)

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

When they're pretending it means they're willing to acknowledge the shame of their immoral stance. It's when they stop pretending that they openly go after these things and dare anyone to try to stop them. Normalizing their hatred and bigotry really isn't preferable, it's a step toward enabling even worse behavior on their part.

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago

It’s not shame that’s been slowing them down, though, it’s fear their base isn’t sufficiently radicalised to accept full fascism. Some percentage of their base would vote them out if they dropped the mask.

At least we’ll find out whether that’s true if they stop pussyfooting about.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 9 points 11 months ago

I get the argument, but there's plenty of hard evidence. Calling it out is important when it can weaken them - such as near election time. Otherwise, their silence and denial is better than normalizing further backsliding to the general public, imo

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

All ~~Congressional~~ Republicans are ~~absolutely vile cretins~~ fascists.

I hate that I have to keep saying that.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 9 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I was an election volunteer once with an old guy who described himself as a liberal republican and loudly and repeatedly complained "I didn't leave the party, the party left me."

He seemed alright.

[–] squiblet@kbin.social 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Republicans used to be just in favor of lower taxes, oppressing minorities, pollution, war and small government. Oh… hmm, now they’re still in favor of most of that but they just to pretend to be about a couple of them.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Guy was in his 80s, and this was a few years ago. It's not inconceivable that he started associating with the Republican Party in the days of Dewey and Ike, when liberal republicanism was still a thing.

In any case, I don't disagree with your broader point about modern Republicans being literal fascists.

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

My dad is 88 and was a staunch Republican until Reagan. I remember the Reagan/Carter election – even the date, 6 November 1980, stuck in my little ten-year-old mind. It was my dad’s birthday, and he voted for Reagan.

That was the last Republican he voted for, and he’s liberal AF now. They say people get more conservative as they grow older, and that may be true for boomers (I’m lucky to have no boomers in my family; we skipped from the Silent Generation straight to GenX), but everyone I know old enough to have any real memory of WWII or its aftermath have swung pretty left.

I remember bringing up an article to him before the 2016* election where Holocaust survivors had released an open letter saying they’d experienced real fascism and trump’s rhetoric was Capital F Fascism, and how the general reaction to the letter was that it was hyperbole. He said he agreed with the letter 100%.

It’s only got worse since. This was never about trump; he’s just their carnival barker, and will be replaced if he goes down. This is a bona fide fascist movement, and ignoring it only makes it stronger.

Tldr: totally agree.

e: clarified with year.

e2: If this were 1932 and you were in Weimar Germany, knowing what you know now, what would you do? We should be asking ourselves and everyone this question.

[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 2 points 11 months ago

Yeah, that's kinda how my dad is. Fiscally conservative but supports civil rights. That said, he isn't fully against government welfare programs, but he always wants to know where the money is coming from before backing a new government program.

[–] osarusan@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

"I didn't leave the party, the party left me."

I mean, I get that... but also, if the party left you but you still vote for the party, then they didn't actually leave you. You tagged along.

People like him need to drop the label "Republican" and stop voting Republican if they really think the party left them. Otherwise they're full of shit.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

People who say that usually don't vote for the party in the general election, at least not reliably. Many hold out a hope, however naive, that their advocacy and primary votes, and that of people like them, can reverse the rot.

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 8 points 11 months ago

Openly vile is far better, honestly. People need to start seeing these fascists for what they are, and that won’t happen if they’re hiding behind a façade.

[–] Scotty_Trees@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Surprised you think the house will ever be blue again. Pretty sure we’re fucked mate, we can’t beat fascists with kids gloves.