Author Topic: Republicans  (Read 2659 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Republicans
« Reply #30 on: July 30, 2020, 05:40:05 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41901
  • Tommy Points: -27133
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/27/us-rightwing-extremists-attacks-deaths-database-leftwing-antifa

0
Victims killed in anti-fascist attacks since 1994

21
Victims killed in left-wing violence since 2010

95
Victims killed in jihadist attacks since 2010

117
Victims killed in right-wing violence since 2010

329
Victims killed in right-wing violence since 1994

I can do this all day.

When a parent drives her vehicle into a BLM occupied zone and her child is killed when multiple “peaceful protesters” fire indiscriminately into her vehicle, where do we categorize that?

When several cops are killed in ambushes, where do we classify that?

What about the billions of dollars in property damage?  The cops blinded by lasers, injured by thrown rocks, bricks and bottles?

Show me those numbers, please.

At no point have I said there is not left wing violence what I have presented information on is that right wing violence is more prevalent and deadly.  You claimed left winger are perpetrating more violence I countered that statement with facts.  You still cling to you world view despite the facts.

For the record violence from the left or right is wrong but let's look at the really threats to safety. Right wing, fascists, ethno-nationalists, white supremacists and their ilk are far more dangerous than Antifa or other left wing anarchists.

You again seem to be confusing the meanings of words like “violence”.  Nothing you have presented suggests that violence is more prevalent from the right wing.  More deadly, perhaps, but certainly not more prevelant, particularly lately.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Republicans
« Reply #31 on: July 30, 2020, 07:08:48 PM »

Offline Wretch

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 201
  • Tommy Points: 29
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/27/us-rightwing-extremists-attacks-deaths-database-leftwing-antifa

0
Victims killed in anti-fascist attacks since 1994

21
Victims killed in left-wing violence since 2010

95
Victims killed in jihadist attacks since 2010

117
Victims killed in right-wing violence since 2010

329
Victims killed in right-wing violence since 1994

I can do this all day.

When a parent drives her vehicle into a BLM occupied zone and her child is killed when multiple “peaceful protesters” fire indiscriminately into her vehicle, where do we categorize that?

When several cops are killed in ambushes, where do we classify that?

What about the billions of dollars in property damage?  The cops blinded by lasers, injured by thrown rocks, bricks and bottles?

Show me those numbers, please.

At no point have I said there is not left wing violence what I have presented information on is that right wing violence is more prevalent and deadly.  You claimed left winger are perpetrating more violence I countered that statement with facts.  You still cling to you world view despite the facts.

For the record violence from the left or right is wrong but let's look at the really threats to safety. Right wing, fascists, ethno-nationalists, white supremacists and their ilk are far more dangerous than Antifa or other left wing anarchists.

You again seem to be confusing the meanings of words like “violence”.  Nothing you have presented suggests that violence is more prevalent from the right wing.  More deadly, perhaps, but certainly not more prevelant, particularly lately.
when the facts aren't on your side lean into semantics. Try to pretend terrorism isn't violence and try to limit the time frame to a nebulous "lately."

To be clear graffiti isn't a violent crime.

Re: Republicans
« Reply #32 on: July 30, 2020, 07:32:25 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41901
  • Tommy Points: -27133
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/27/us-rightwing-extremists-attacks-deaths-database-leftwing-antifa

0
Victims killed in anti-fascist attacks since 1994

21
Victims killed in left-wing violence since 2010

95
Victims killed in jihadist attacks since 2010

117
Victims killed in right-wing violence since 2010

329
Victims killed in right-wing violence since 1994

I can do this all day.

When a parent drives her vehicle into a BLM occupied zone and her child is killed when multiple “peaceful protesters” fire indiscriminately into her vehicle, where do we categorize that?

When several cops are killed in ambushes, where do we classify that?

What about the billions of dollars in property damage?  The cops blinded by lasers, injured by thrown rocks, bricks and bottles?

Show me those numbers, please.

At no point have I said there is not left wing violence what I have presented information on is that right wing violence is more prevalent and deadly.  You claimed left winger are perpetrating more violence I countered that statement with facts.  You still cling to you world view despite the facts.

For the record violence from the left or right is wrong but let's look at the really threats to safety. Right wing, fascists, ethno-nationalists, white supremacists and their ilk are far more dangerous than Antifa or other left wing anarchists.

You again seem to be confusing the meanings of words like “violence”.  Nothing you have presented suggests that violence is more prevalent from the right wing.  More deadly, perhaps, but certainly not more prevelant, particularly lately.
when the facts aren't on your side lean into semantics. Try to pretend terrorism isn't violence and try to limit the time frame to a nebulous "lately."

To be clear graffiti isn't a violent crime.

Semantics?  I said “violence”.  You’re hyper-focused on a small subset of violence, while ignoring the bulk of it.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Republicans
« Reply #33 on: July 30, 2020, 10:09:12 PM »

Offline wiley

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4128
  • Tommy Points: 318
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/27/us-rightwing-extremists-attacks-deaths-database-leftwing-antifa

0
Victims killed in anti-fascist attacks since 1994

21
Victims killed in left-wing violence since 2010

95
Victims killed in jihadist attacks since 2010

117
Victims killed in right-wing violence since 2010

329
Victims killed in right-wing violence since 1994

I can do this all day.

When a parent drives her vehicle into a BLM occupied zone and her child is killed when multiple “peaceful protesters” fire indiscriminately into her vehicle, where do we categorize that?

When several cops are killed in ambushes, where do we classify that?

What about the billions of dollars in property damage?  The cops blinded by lasers, injured by thrown rocks, bricks and bottles?

Show me those numbers, please.

At no point have I said there is not left wing violence what I have presented information on is that right wing violence is more prevalent and deadly.  You claimed left winger are perpetrating more violence I countered that statement with facts.  You still cling to you world view despite the facts.

For the record violence from the left or right is wrong but let's look at the really threats to safety. Right wing, fascists, ethno-nationalists, white supremacists and their ilk are far more dangerous than Antifa or other left wing anarchists.

Bolded the truth.  A concern I've tried to raise in other threads. 

Meanwhile:  Trump Island gets smaller and smaller:

The co-founder of the conservative Federalist Society said Thursday in a blistering New York Times op-ed that President Donald Trump's tweet musing about a delay to November's presidential election is grounds for impeachment.

Steven Calabresi, a Northwestern University law professor who has offered broad defenses of the President in recent years, wrote, "I am frankly appalled by the president's recent tweet seeking to postpone the November election. Until recently, I had taken as political hyperbole the Democrats' assertion that President Trump is a fascist."
"But this latest tweet is fascistic and is itself grounds for the president's immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate," he said.
It's a significant break from the co-founder of one of the most influential groups in Republican politics. The Federalist Society has emerged as a leading conservative and libertarian voice in recent years, urging a limited role for judges in society's problems.

Re: Republicans
« Reply #34 on: July 31, 2020, 06:08:09 AM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16389
  • Tommy Points: 1769
Are violent and extreme right or left wing groups more like one another than they are “akin” to mainstream liberal or conservative?  If so, is the use of the terms right or left generally wrong as the implication is that there is a connection or likeness of ideology to mainstream right and left?  Is Bernie Sanders more ideologically close to Antifa than he is to mainstream republican? Is James Imhoff ideologically closer to being in the KKK than he is to being a democrat?   

I’m really not sure of the answers because once you’ve truly radicalized you’ve submitted to a singularity of mind and purpose that places you completely out of the mainstream of American politics.  Rand Paul, AOC, Imhoff, Sanders may be at the ideological edges of what I’m considering mainstream conservative, liberal, libertarian— but are they truly fascist, communist, anarchist?  Once we get extreme enough on “left” and “right” are the actions of the players starting to look somewhat indistinguishable? Does it become more about chaos, anger, violence and power than it is about left or right political ideology? 

Maybe it’s just about whether a group espouses or acts in ways that reflect anti-American values like hatred and violence rather than whether they are extreme left or right. 



Re: Republicans
« Reply #35 on: July 31, 2020, 08:55:43 AM »

Offline gift

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2502
  • Tommy Points: 211
Are violent and extreme right or left wing groups more like one another than they are “akin” to mainstream liberal or conservative?  If so, is the use of the terms right or left generally wrong as the implication is that there is a connection or likeness of ideology to mainstream right and left?  Is Bernie Sanders more ideologically close to Antifa than he is to mainstream republican? Is James Imhoff ideologically closer to being in the KKK than he is to being a democrat?   

I’m really not sure of the answers because once you’ve truly radicalized you’ve submitted to a singularity of mind and purpose that places you completely out of the mainstream of American politics.  Rand Paul, AOC, Imhoff, Sanders may be at the ideological edges of what I’m considering mainstream conservative, liberal, libertarian— but are they truly fascist, communist, anarchist?  Once we get extreme enough on “left” and “right” are the actions of the players starting to look somewhat indistinguishable? Does it become more about chaos, anger, violence and power than it is about left or right political ideology? 

Maybe it’s just about whether a group espouses or acts in ways that reflect anti-American values like hatred and violence rather than whether they are extreme left or right.

Yeah, I don't like "left wing" or "right wing" applied to extremes because they are really their own thing. Moderates on either wing have more in common in practice than either side does to the extremes of "their wing".

Re: Republicans
« Reply #36 on: July 31, 2020, 11:19:44 AM »

Offline mobilija

  • Tacko Fall
  • Posts: 719
  • Tommy Points: 170
Are violent and extreme right or left wing groups more like one another than they are “akin” to mainstream liberal or conservative?  If so, is the use of the terms right or left generally wrong as the implication is that there is a connection or likeness of ideology to mainstream right and left?  Is Bernie Sanders more ideologically close to Antifa than he is to mainstream republican? Is James Imhoff ideologically closer to being in the KKK than he is to being a democrat?   

I’m really not sure of the answers because once you’ve truly radicalized you’ve submitted to a singularity of mind and purpose that places you completely out of the mainstream of American politics.  Rand Paul, AOC, Imhoff, Sanders may be at the ideological edges of what I’m considering mainstream conservative, liberal, libertarian— but are they truly fascist, communist, anarchist?  Once we get extreme enough on “left” and “right” are the actions of the players starting to look somewhat indistinguishable? Does it become more about chaos, anger, violence and power than it is about left or right political ideology? 

Maybe it’s just about whether a group espouses or acts in ways that reflect anti-American values like hatred and violence rather than whether they are extreme left or right.

Yeah, I don't like "left wing" or "right wing" applied to extremes because they are really their own thing. Moderates on either wing have more in common in practice than either side does to the extremes of "their wing".

In general, I agree with both of you. But does it matter that, though we may not brand Trump as a “right wing” extremist, That his rhetoric emboldens those groups To act out violently (both the “right” for him and the “left” against him? So....doesn’t that in effect align him to that far right?

 ....If you’re not directly fighting against evil, then you are aiding it....

Re: Republicans
« Reply #37 on: July 31, 2020, 11:24:10 AM »

Offline gift

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2502
  • Tommy Points: 211
Are violent and extreme right or left wing groups more like one another than they are “akin” to mainstream liberal or conservative?  If so, is the use of the terms right or left generally wrong as the implication is that there is a connection or likeness of ideology to mainstream right and left?  Is Bernie Sanders more ideologically close to Antifa than he is to mainstream republican? Is James Imhoff ideologically closer to being in the KKK than he is to being a democrat?   

I’m really not sure of the answers because once you’ve truly radicalized you’ve submitted to a singularity of mind and purpose that places you completely out of the mainstream of American politics.  Rand Paul, AOC, Imhoff, Sanders may be at the ideological edges of what I’m considering mainstream conservative, liberal, libertarian— but are they truly fascist, communist, anarchist?  Once we get extreme enough on “left” and “right” are the actions of the players starting to look somewhat indistinguishable? Does it become more about chaos, anger, violence and power than it is about left or right political ideology? 

Maybe it’s just about whether a group espouses or acts in ways that reflect anti-American values like hatred and violence rather than whether they are extreme left or right.

Yeah, I don't like "left wing" or "right wing" applied to extremes because they are really their own thing. Moderates on either wing have more in common in practice than either side does to the extremes of "their wing".

In general, I agree with both of you. But does it matter that, though we may not brand Trump as a “right wing” extremist, That his rhetoric emboldens those groups To act out violently (both the “right” for him and the “left” against him? So....doesn’t that in effect align him to that far right?

 ....If you’re not directly fighting against evil, then you are aiding it....

I think it's fine to argue that Trump emboldens the "far right", but again just maybe more expedient to replace "far right" with something else (same for "far left").

For instance, from an analysis linked earlier in the thread:
"Right-wing terrorists are motivated by ideas of racial or ethnic supremacy; opposition to government authority, including the sovereign citizen movement; misogyny, including incels (“involuntary celibates”); hatred based on sexuality or gender identity; and/or opposition to certain policies such as abortion.
Left-wing terrorists are motivated by an opposition to capitalism, imperialism, or colonialism; support for environmental causes or animal rights; pro-communist or pro-socialist beliefs; and/or support for decentralized political and social systems, such as anarchism"

It's pretty clear that these classifications don't neatly fit into right wing/left wing and many people would fit a little bit in both categories.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2020, 11:34:18 AM by gift »

Re: Republicans
« Reply #38 on: July 31, 2020, 11:48:38 AM »

Offline wiley

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4128
  • Tommy Points: 318
Are violent and extreme right or left wing groups more like one another than they are “akin” to mainstream liberal or conservative?  If so, is the use of the terms right or left generally wrong as the implication is that there is a connection or likeness of ideology to mainstream right and left?  Is Bernie Sanders more ideologically close to Antifa than he is to mainstream republican? Is James Imhoff ideologically closer to being in the KKK than he is to being a democrat?   

I’m really not sure of the answers because once you’ve truly radicalized you’ve submitted to a singularity of mind and purpose that places you completely out of the mainstream of American politics.  Rand Paul, AOC, Imhoff, Sanders may be at the ideological edges of what I’m considering mainstream conservative, liberal, libertarian— but are they truly fascist, communist, anarchist?  Once we get extreme enough on “left” and “right” are the actions of the players starting to look somewhat indistinguishable? Does it become more about chaos, anger, violence and power than it is about left or right political ideology? 

Maybe it’s just about whether a group espouses or acts in ways that reflect anti-American values like hatred and violence rather than whether they are extreme left or right.

Yeah, I don't like "left wing" or "right wing" applied to extremes because they are really their own thing. Moderates on either wing have more in common in practice than either side does to the extremes of "their wing".

Perhaps for sake of argument on blog we could avoid those terms, but in general it really very hard to do.  We have statistics pointed to by Wretch in this thread that deal with where political violence and threat of violence is coming from by organized groups.  The people who gather this threat information need to label the threat.  They can't just say "thugs".  I guess they could call all far right wing affiliated political groups fascist, but that would also cause problems.  So far right sometimes is the the term that lessens the level of extreme labels.  In any case:  we have a very conservative Northwestern law professor calling Trump's tweets about postponing the election as "fascist"  Here his quote from my larger post above:   

"....Until recently, I had taken as political hyperbole the Democrats' assertion that President Trump is a fascist."
"But this latest tweet is fascistic and is itself grounds for the president's immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate," he said.

Which takes us back to this thread and how Republicans are dealing with having a president who no longer represents them.  It is a tricky time for the Lindsay Grahams of the world...who I believe will try to distance from Trump...but so much too late that his legacy is lost.  Real leaders who put country first instead of party first will emerge...so far that means Romney and some non-Congresss members of the Republican party.  (I'm sure a few other republican congressmen and congresswoman will come out ok too...but Romney is all I can think of right now. Certainly people have given up on Susan Collins, though she may survive who knows.

(there was a thread about the Far Right a few pages back).

Re: Republicans
« Reply #39 on: July 31, 2020, 12:10:34 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16389
  • Tommy Points: 1769
Are violent and extreme right or left wing groups more like one another than they are “akin” to mainstream liberal or conservative?  If so, is the use of the terms right or left generally wrong as the implication is that there is a connection or likeness of ideology to mainstream right and left?  Is Bernie Sanders more ideologically close to Antifa than he is to mainstream republican? Is James Imhoff ideologically closer to being in the KKK than he is to being a democrat?   

I’m really not sure of the answers because once you’ve truly radicalized you’ve submitted to a singularity of mind and purpose that places you completely out of the mainstream of American politics.  Rand Paul, AOC, Imhoff, Sanders may be at the ideological edges of what I’m considering mainstream conservative, liberal, libertarian— but are they truly fascist, communist, anarchist?  Once we get extreme enough on “left” and “right” are the actions of the players starting to look somewhat indistinguishable? Does it become more about chaos, anger, violence and power than it is about left or right political ideology? 

Maybe it’s just about whether a group espouses or acts in ways that reflect anti-American values like hatred and violence rather than whether they are extreme left or right.

Yeah, I don't like "left wing" or "right wing" applied to extremes because they are really their own thing. Moderates on either wing have more in common in practice than either side does to the extremes of "their wing".

Perhaps for sake of argument on blog we could avoid those terms, but in general it really very hard to do.  We have statistics pointed to by Wretch in this thread that deal with where political violence and threat of violence is coming from by organized groups.  The people who gather this threat information need to label the threat.  They can't just say "thugs".  I guess they could call all far right wing affiliated political groups fascist, but that would also cause problems.  So far right sometimes is the the term that lessens the level of extreme labels.  In any case:  we have a very conservative Northwestern law professor calling Trump's tweets about postponing the election as "fascist"  Here his quote from my larger post above:   

"....Until recently, I had taken as political hyperbole the Democrats' assertion that President Trump is a fascist."
"But this latest tweet is fascistic and is itself grounds for the president's immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate," he said.

Which takes us back to this thread and how Republicans are dealing with having a president who no longer represents them.  It is a tricky time for the Lindsay Grahams of the world...who I believe will try to distance from Trump...but so much too late that his legacy is lost.  Real leaders who put country first instead of party first will emerge...so far that means Romney and some non-Congresss members of the Republican party.  (I'm sure a few other republican congressmen and congresswoman will come out ok too...but Romney is all I can think of right now. Certainly people have given up on Susan Collins, though she may survive who knows.

(there was a thread about the Far Right a few pages back).

I think I will be both surprised and disappointed if in fact Lindsey Graham and other republicans aren't waiting for just the right time and opportunity to turn on Trump.   The calculation definitely will depend on polling numbers in their own races and how things shape up for the president as we get past the party conventions and into the final 6 weeks or so. 

Graham is in a statistical tie in SC and if the POTUS remains well behind Biden in the polls, it may become politically beneficial to distance himself from Trump -- and court the South Carolinians who are anti-Trump but don't like the idea of Dems controlling all 3 branches.  There are probably enough voters who would soften for Graham with that message to put him over the top. 

Still too early - so much can still happen in the Trump-Biden race for the fearful loyal Rs to take a stand yet, but I am hopeful we'll see a piece of the loyal Trump base start to crumble in a few weeks.  Maybe some refusals to participate in the convention.

Re: Republicans
« Reply #40 on: July 31, 2020, 12:15:48 PM »

Offline gift

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2502
  • Tommy Points: 211
Are violent and extreme right or left wing groups more like one another than they are “akin” to mainstream liberal or conservative?  If so, is the use of the terms right or left generally wrong as the implication is that there is a connection or likeness of ideology to mainstream right and left?  Is Bernie Sanders more ideologically close to Antifa than he is to mainstream republican? Is James Imhoff ideologically closer to being in the KKK than he is to being a democrat?   

I’m really not sure of the answers because once you’ve truly radicalized you’ve submitted to a singularity of mind and purpose that places you completely out of the mainstream of American politics.  Rand Paul, AOC, Imhoff, Sanders may be at the ideological edges of what I’m considering mainstream conservative, liberal, libertarian— but are they truly fascist, communist, anarchist?  Once we get extreme enough on “left” and “right” are the actions of the players starting to look somewhat indistinguishable? Does it become more about chaos, anger, violence and power than it is about left or right political ideology? 

Maybe it’s just about whether a group espouses or acts in ways that reflect anti-American values like hatred and violence rather than whether they are extreme left or right.

Yeah, I don't like "left wing" or "right wing" applied to extremes because they are really their own thing. Moderates on either wing have more in common in practice than either side does to the extremes of "their wing".

Perhaps for sake of argument on blog we could avoid those terms, but in general it really very hard to do.  We have statistics pointed to by Wretch in this thread that deal with where political violence and threat of violence is coming from by organized groups.  The people who gather this threat information need to label the threat.  They can't just say "thugs".

See directly above. I know there are advantages of convenience for labeling them as we do, but it's not for accuracy and not without downside either.

Re: Republicans
« Reply #41 on: July 31, 2020, 12:32:14 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41901
  • Tommy Points: -27133
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Are violent and extreme right or left wing groups more like one another than they are “akin” to mainstream liberal or conservative?  If so, is the use of the terms right or left generally wrong as the implication is that there is a connection or likeness of ideology to mainstream right and left?  Is Bernie Sanders more ideologically close to Antifa than he is to mainstream republican? Is James Imhoff ideologically closer to being in the KKK than he is to being a democrat?   

I’m really not sure of the answers because once you’ve truly radicalized you’ve submitted to a singularity of mind and purpose that places you completely out of the mainstream of American politics.  Rand Paul, AOC, Imhoff, Sanders may be at the ideological edges of what I’m considering mainstream conservative, liberal, libertarian— but are they truly fascist, communist, anarchist?  Once we get extreme enough on “left” and “right” are the actions of the players starting to look somewhat indistinguishable? Does it become more about chaos, anger, violence and power than it is about left or right political ideology? 

Maybe it’s just about whether a group espouses or acts in ways that reflect anti-American values like hatred and violence rather than whether they are extreme left or right.

Yeah, I don't like "left wing" or "right wing" applied to extremes because they are really their own thing. Moderates on either wing have more in common in practice than either side does to the extremes of "their wing".

Perhaps for sake of argument on blog we could avoid those terms, but in general it really very hard to do.  We have statistics pointed to by Wretch in this thread that deal with where political violence and threat of violence is coming from by organized groups.  The people who gather this threat information need to label the threat.  They can't just say "thugs".

See directly above. I know there are advantages of convenience for labeling them as we do, but it's not for accuracy and not without downside either.

Yeah.  For instance, are the “boogaloos” really aligned with the “right”?  They kill cops and want to destroy the government, including Trump and Republicans in Congress.  They’re not aligned with the left, either. 

Similarly, things get weird related to religion.  If radical Christians bomb an abortion clinic, that’s “right wing” violence.  If radical Muslims attack the WTC, though, that’s not considered “left wing”. 

White Supremacists, prior to 2016, were not considered a voting bloc.  However, their violence has been attributed to “right wing” groups, with no corresponding category for gangs who target white victims.

That said, the picture does get muddy when political parties start to condone acts of violence.  It’s not fair to link white supremacy with main stream Republican values, but if Trump courts those people, then there should be criticism. Similarly, if Democrats don’t call out rioters, arsonists and murderers who they have a common interest with, it makes the connection between the groups stronger.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Republicans
« Reply #42 on: July 31, 2020, 03:02:09 PM »

Offline wiley

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4128
  • Tommy Points: 318
Are violent and extreme right or left wing groups more like one another than they are “akin” to mainstream liberal or conservative?  If so, is the use of the terms right or left generally wrong as the implication is that there is a connection or likeness of ideology to mainstream right and left?  Is Bernie Sanders more ideologically close to Antifa than he is to mainstream republican? Is James Imhoff ideologically closer to being in the KKK than he is to being a democrat?   

I’m really not sure of the answers because once you’ve truly radicalized you’ve submitted to a singularity of mind and purpose that places you completely out of the mainstream of American politics.  Rand Paul, AOC, Imhoff, Sanders may be at the ideological edges of what I’m considering mainstream conservative, liberal, libertarian— but are they truly fascist, communist, anarchist?  Once we get extreme enough on “left” and “right” are the actions of the players starting to look somewhat indistinguishable? Does it become more about chaos, anger, violence and power than it is about left or right political ideology? 

Maybe it’s just about whether a group espouses or acts in ways that reflect anti-American values like hatred and violence rather than whether they are extreme left or right.

Yeah, I don't like "left wing" or "right wing" applied to extremes because they are really their own thing. Moderates on either wing have more in common in practice than either side does to the extremes of "their wing".

Perhaps for sake of argument on blog we could avoid those terms, but in general it really very hard to do.  We have statistics pointed to by Wretch in this thread that deal with where political violence and threat of violence is coming from by organized groups.  The people who gather this threat information need to label the threat.  They can't just say "thugs".

See directly above. I know there are advantages of convenience for labeling them as we do, but it's not for accuracy and not without downside either.

Yeah.  For instance, are the “boogaloos” really aligned with the “right”?  They kill cops and want to destroy the government, including Trump and Republicans in Congress.  They’re not aligned with the left, either. 

Similarly, things get weird related to religion.  If radical Christians bomb an abortion clinic, that’s “right wing” violence.  If radical Muslims attack the WTC, though, that’s not considered “left wing”. 

White Supremacists, prior to 2016, were not considered a voting bloc.  However, their violence has been attributed to “right wing” groups, with no corresponding category for gangs who target white victims.

That said, the picture does get muddy when political parties start to condone acts of violence.  It’s not fair to link white supremacy with main stream Republican values, but if Trump courts those people, then there should be criticism. Similarly, if Democrats don’t call out rioters, arsonists and murderers who they have a common interest with, it makes the connection between the groups stronger.

I would quibble with the bolded.  Rioters, arsonists and murderers do not help Democrats.  They hurt Democrats.  (as Umbrella Man surely knows).  And I would also say that White Supremacists have gone too far and are now hurting Republicans.  But more than one Republican strategist is pointing finger at self for overdoing the "Southern Strategy" and creating the foundation for a Trump like figure to take it even further.

So I would say in your analogy there is a greater connection between the former than the latter.  Unless you think Democrats are promoting rioting, arson and murder.

Just to be clear, I agree with you that White Supremacy should not be linked with mainstream Republican values. 

As far as radical Christians bombing abortion clinics, their voting preference should lean Republican if that is their main issue.  That is not a knock on Republclicans, as it likely hurts Republicans overall.
I can't picture radical Muslims associated, or leaning towards any party.  Al Qaeda recruitment certainly benefits when the U.S. bombs the hell of middle eastern countries.  I would think they're less happy with Obama's quieter stealth strikes than Bush's Iraq war.  But overall I see no equivalence in that analogy....

Re: Republicans
« Reply #43 on: August 01, 2020, 09:15:44 AM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16389
  • Tommy Points: 1769
Found this from shortly after the Access Hollywood video came out. It was less than a month to go before the election.   Sure felt like there was no way Trump would win. 


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/08/donald-trump-debate-mike-crapo-mike-lee-barbara-comstock/91784714/

3 months to go now and I think there still may be enough of Trump’s conspiracy and anger deluded base plus ideological Republicans who can’t stomach democrats in power to give him another term.  It is terrifying to me that he may get 4 more years.  Time for prominent Republicans to take a stand and say enough is enough.

Re: Republicans
« Reply #44 on: August 01, 2020, 11:27:56 AM »

Offline mobilija

  • Tacko Fall
  • Posts: 719
  • Tommy Points: 170
I hate to, somewhat, derail this thread back to the extremist talk but....

The more I think about this, the more I’m shifting my opinion. If white supremesist groups and ultra Christian abortion clinic bombing groups are voting Republican, than they are right wing extremists. Similarly, if violence instigating anti-fa groups are voting Democrat then they are left wing extremists. And until the leaders of each party start Denouncing these groups and calling them out that’s not gonna change. If you don’t like the name and/or affiliation Of these extreme groups to a given party, then a vocal effort has to be made to get them out of your party. Politicians have to get brave and actually not want those votes...yeah right. If an extremist group doesn’t vote, well then, they’re just violent gangs.  Let’s hope our politicians can step up, stop pandering to these groups, start calling them out so that we can take away they’re political affiliation and just label them what they are, terrorists.

So, though I know very little about the Lincoln Project, I’ve got to commend them for attempting to distance themselves from Trump Republicanism, which seems to go after these extremist voters more than any other political faction.