• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing US GOP Debacle Thread: Seditious Republicans march toward authoritarianism

Yes, but that is the exact kind of thing Nichols is arguing against in that article.
 
Ongoing US GOP Debacle Thread: Embracing Trumpism/White Supremacy

Always pay attention to how people define “We.” Republicans use the Constitutional “We” as in the Preamble to the Constitution. (Junebug would call this “original intent.”)

For them “We” is wealthy white men and dupes who either think they’ll become wealthy white men or think those white men act in their interest.

So for them parroting “United We Stand, Divided We Fall” isn’t ironic because they’re only talking about uniting white men.

Democrats use a collective We. Everyone. That’s dangerous to Republicans because it dilutes their power derived from homogeneity.
 
Oh I know, I read the full article. But I’ve seen this movie before. Until we have the receipts, I don’t trust any conservative to vote against Trump.

I voted against him in 2016. Then I campaigned for Democrats in 2018. I stand with Nichols...I’ll gladly vote for any Dem nominee other than Gabbard and Williamson. And if it’s one of those two, they’ll get my vote provided there’s not a stronger 3rd party candidate who is likely to win.
 
That being said - today’s “conservatives” are a bunch of pussies who are totally fine with being lied to by dear leader trump. I realize there are very few conservatives like myself or Tom Nichols.
 
congrats. an even dumber and unrealistic political philosophy.
 
It’s rare to spot a donkey in the wild who lacks sufficient self-awareness that he calls another political viewpoint “unrealistic.”

in your mind you thought this was clever
 
“Ethnic ties provide the groundwork for social trust and political solidarity and, universalist aspirations notwithstanding, continue to do so. At the same time, social scientists have found that greater ethnic heterogeneity is associated with lower social trust. Ethnically heterogeneous societies exhibit less political and civic engagement, less effective governing institutions, and fewer public goods. The sociologist Robert Putnam has concluded that greater ethnic diversity weakens social solidarity, fosters social isolation, and inhibits social capital:

“Inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbours, regardless
of the colour of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.”

These findings confirm that the solidarity underlying democratic polities rests in large part on ethnic identification.
Surely, it does not serve the cause of liberal democracy to ignore this reality. The trouble, however, is that “the democratic principle does not define the framework within which it operates.” Because it embraces a principle of universalistic human equality, modern democratic thinking cannot justify the particularistic national context in which liberal democracy was nurtured and continues to thrive. The difficulty with the modern attitude is that it assumes human equality exists prior to political society and that liberal democracy springs logically from this preexisting fact. But this gets the chronology wrong. “We are not born equal; we become equal as members of a group on the strength of our decision to guarantee ourselves mutually equal rights,” writes Arendt. “Equality, in contrast to all that is involved in mere existence, is not given us, but is the result of human organization insofar as it is guided by the principle of justice.”


——————-

That is not an Israel specific argument that he is making.
 
“Original intent” is not the touchstone of Originalism. “Original meaning” is.

The notion that “we the people” is limited to landowning white males ignores the 14th Amendment, which provides that all persons have equal protection of the laws.

People who criticize originalism as being racist refuse, either because of stupidity or for polemical reasons, to accept that originalism acknowledges that the 13-15th Amendments worked a fundamental change in constitutional structure.

Took em a while to fix it, eh
 
Ongoing US GOP Debacle Thread: Embracing Trumpism/White Supremacy

the conservatives and libertarians were fine with things
 
types_of_libertarian1.png
 
And they’ve been working to undermine those amendments ever since.

The notion that the very first words of a document written in 1787 apply to one subset of people ignores a correction made 81 years later to apply them to all.
 
That being said - today’s “conservatives” are a bunch of pussies who are totally fine with being lied to by dear leader trump. I realize there are very few conservatives like myself or Tom Nichols.

When your burning and obsessive hatred of any and all things Trump causes you to blindly vote for any Dem on every ballot regardless of policy, you were never a conservative in the first place.

That goes for you and double for your hack buddy, Tom Nichols.
 
It’s rare to spot a donkey in the wild who lacks sufficient self-awareness that he calls another political viewpoint “unrealistic.”

ah, yes - the supposed libertarian who uses shared web infrastructure developed and subsidized by the government to endorse extra-judicial police killings and increased government intervention in everyday life on the internet
 
Back
Top