That’s nice, but neither of your points here deal with the ones were Republican conservative dogma is causing harm as we speak. In fact a lot of the funerals of contrarian researchers being involved in the issues I pointed out, already took place.
Many current conservatives act as if those deaths or tests made many times in years past never took place.
I share this point of view.
I will have to say that you need to tune that skepticism, in the cases I pointed out, assuming that they were never subjects to falsification (for more than a hundred years) also depends on a lot of ignorance.
Yes. What I am saying is that action (to suppress ‘misinformation’) that might arguably be appropriate in one area that is very well settled is being extended willy-nilly to issues that very much are not. And since any authority entrusted with this power is certain to abuse it to push their own agenda, I oppose anyone having it.
And yet it was actively censored on social media for months, until the Biden administration declared it was worth investigating after all. The censorship is not being limited to issues that are extremely well settled, but is being applied in a partisan fashion.
I agree with all of that.
I rotally reject fhat line of thinking. i can support a movement that has serious weaknesses if I think it’s in general moving a country in the right direction, or if one thing it is right about outweighs all the bad stuff, or even if it’s simply the least bad alternative.
If you support Democrats, does that mean I get throw every stupid thing Kamala Harris says or does in your face? Are you forced to defend or publicly oppose every single thing she does? What if she becomes President and is a disaster? Is that your fault because you generally support Democrats over Republicans? How about Al Sharpton? He’s still a kingmaker in Democratic politics. He’s also a racist grifter. Should I take your support of Democrats to mean you support and must defend everything Sharpton says or renounce Democrats entirely?
The fact is, on this board the people on the right are always called on to defend the actions of the worst person on the right that can be found, or to reject the entire movement, Support for a general idea is taken to mean support for the worst person that can be found who also supports that idea. That standard is never applied to the left, And the left is full of horrific people on the fringes, just like the right.
You may notice that Sarah Palin has not had a sterling career as a Republican after her moment in the sun. Constantly bringing her up as an avatar for the right is just a smear tactic.
All I meant by the Tea Party being a ‘better class’ of Republican was that they were generally mainstream people - non-violent, concerned with debt and bad government, etc. They might have been wrong, but they weren’t dangerous or outside the Overton window for behaviour.
They got mocked and shamed, and went away. Mitt Romney was brutalized unfairly in the media and lost. That outraged a lot of people, who then looked for a candidate ‘who fights’. Enter Trump. And rhe reaction to Trump by the left helped create the Proud Boys, the One Percenters, etc. Hopefully you’ll agree that you’d be happy to exchange those clowns for some old style tea partiers. That’s all I meant.
But somehow that made me a supporter of Sarah Palin.
Absolutely. Otherwise I’d have to move away from being a liberal/leftist/what-have-you just because, say, Andrew Cuomo exists.
Your point is a fair point. The existence of Sarah Palin does not, in and of itself, discredit conservatism. Although, on the other hand, the existence and embrace by conservatives of Newt Gingrich, he being the intellectual architect of the Tea Party movement, might be a different story.
Mitt Romney was unfairly treated by some in the media. This is true. He seems to me to be an essentially decent man who is wrong about a lot of things.
I think you’re wrong about this. Unfair treatment of Mitt Romney is not why we got Trumpism. The reaction to Trump is not why we got the Proud Boys, et al. Trump and Trumpism just gave license to a strain in American politics that had been around for a long time.
If we’re assigning blame, to start with, go back to Newt Gingrich, one of the most intellectual (and actually, in every way) dishonest people ever to rise to a leadership role in American politics. He, as much as (or more) than anyone laid the groundwork for the rise of Trumpism.
And, to be fair, let’s not let ourselves (liberals) off the hook – neoliberalism was not a non-factor in the rise of Trumpism. It wasn’t a major factor, but it wasn’t nothing, either.
Coupla things -
First, Al Sharpton is hardly a “kingmaker.” Candidates for statewide or national office tend to try to steer pretty clear of him. He might be, in a small number of local races in and around his councilmanic district, or even his assembly or state senate districts (although he might not be, too), but that’s about it.
Second, it’s true that Al Sharpton was once a racist grifter. Or at least a grifter. I’m not sure that he’s a racist. An opportunist? Sure.
But I’m betting that you’re not a fan of “cancel culture.” Seems to me (as a New Yorker who’s been watching Sharpton for just about forever) that he’s evolved a bit.
He was once a grifter. I don’t think he is a grifter anymore.
No second chances?
Nice gaslight, Trump was helped a lot by Sarah Palin during the Republican primaries.
Of course, Trump then tossed her after he won, that was par for the course.
But we have people who have made up their minds about the motivations of anyone who disagrees with their preferred course of action on climate change, implying that people who are pessimistic that mitigation is possible, or is too costly, (or, in years previous, should not be done unilaterally by a small part of the world,) are crypto-deniers who only trot forth those arguments because the science has become unassailable. Thus poisoning the well against those who would think that a particular course of action is not wise due to a cost benefit analysis or uselessness.
I daresay I followed the opnions of the right more closely than you did. Sarah Palin was really not much of a factor. Her main appeal, as I recall, was as an example of mainstream media abuse of right-wing politicians which Trump was feeding off, But no one was looking tomSarah Palin for her ideas. No one was pushing her for VP, and there was lots of commentary on the right saying, “Do we really need Sarah Palin here? She not a benefit to us any more.”
But even if she had been more prominent, I’m not responsible for defending her. I liked Sarah Palin for about a week after she made her first big speech at the convention and wowed everyone. It went straight downhill from there every time she opened her mouth, but somehow 12 years later she still gets brought up as an example of what Republicans are and I am called on to defend her or reject the right.
More gaslighting from you.
BTW when I mention gaslighting it is because since you claim to know better, it is clear then that you are just trying to deny what happened before.
You actually think she was abused? Or are you ignoring the fact it was deserved?
Ideas? Since when have Republicans looked to anyone for ideas? She became a shooting star principally because of her willingness to wear her anti-intellectualism on her sleeve. In today’s GOP, not having any ideas is actually a virtue, a prerequisite.
Her use of social media to disparage the ACA as a neo-fascist plan involving death camps for the elderly established later precedent for Donald Trump’s trolling of Obama over his birth certificate.
That’s a bit of a dishonest framing of how we got here, though. Sarah Palin got brought up after you introduced the Tea Party as an example of “good conservatives.” Palin may be a relatively minor figure in the Republican party as a whole, but she came directly out of - and in many ways was an examplar of - the Tea Party movement. Introducing her as a general indictment of the current Republican party may not be warranted, but as a rebuttal to praising the Tea Party movement? That’s absolutely on point.
I guess you missed the part where I said ‘comparatively’, then drew comparisons between the behaviiur of the Tea Party and the current crop of one percenters, Proud Boys, etc. I wasn’t talking about their beliefs, but their extremism and willingness of the current ‘extreme right’ to move outside the boundaries of normal political behaviour.
Say what you want about the Tea Party, but they weren’t threatening anyone or smashing down the doors of the Capitol.
Like if they were not the precursors to the ignorance and unrest that rules the GOP now.
Yes, I think she was abused. She had people going through her garbages, a reporter moved in next door to spy on her, Comedians made jokes about her underaged children, she was accused of being the mother of Trig Palin and using her daughter to hide it. She was accused of book burning, Crazy conspiracies and character assassination were the order of the day for Sarah Palin, just as they were for Mitt Romney in the next cycle.
You may not agree with it, but much of what motivates the more excitable Republicans today is the sense that they are fighting against a media that is totally in the tank for the other side, and that they expect to be treated unfairly at every turn. I tend to agree with them on that point. The mainstream media IS in the tank for the Democrats - that was made abundantly clear by the Trump era, but the treatment in the media of Palin and Romney was their first clue that objective media was dead.
Well, if Democratic politicians say it, it MUST be true. Because they would never lie for political gain. Harry Reid said so.
Remember, I said precursors, not as violent, but paving the way for Trump and other violence instigators.
BTW, the reality is that with was known at the time, Palin demonstrated then her huge incompetence in the way to judge the kind of person she was endorsing; or she did know, and it was a case of birds of a feather supporting each other.
America really did dodge a bullet when she lost in 2008.