[ul]
[li]Prohibiting protests among people they don’t like[/li][li]Making it hard for people they don’t like to vote[/li][li]Using torture and other forms of cruel and unusual punishment[/li][li]Denying people the right to a fair trial[/li][li]Making christianity a more important religion than other faiths, if not making it the official faith of the US. Persecuting muslims[/li][li]Clamping down on media outlets that don’t parrot their propaganda[/li][li]Restricting the power of the judiciary as a check and balance, if not outright removing it[/li][/ul]
Yes. Look at how conservative whites in the south have historically treated black people if you want to see how they’d treat their enemies if they could.
Is there a particular part you had in mind when posting this? Like, are you thinking of the 2nd Amendment and anti-gun folks or something like that?
I know a shitload of Trump voters, and pretty much unanimously they’d be opposed to (most of: possible exception for “making it hard for people they don’t like to vote”, but voter ID laws enjoy broad bi-partisan support, if that’s what you’re referring to here) the things on your list. Admittedly, my “shitload” is only a small sampling of the ~63 million Trump voters, maybe I’m just running in the wrong (right?) circles, but I don’t think your view is anything but a wild liberal caricature, and really REALLY out of touch with reality. Do you have polls you’re basing this viewpoint on? Your own personal acquaintances with Trump voters? Just a gut feeling?
Yes, but only some people. I did not mean it imply that all 90% of Americans would suspend the same part of the constitution. Many would like to suspend the 1st amendment (or part of it) whether it be to stifle the press or the free speech of citizens, or to ban (or interfere with) some religions.
75% of Republicans think Muslim immigrants should be required to register with the government due to their religion.
71% of Trump supporters of broadening laws on torture (i.e. making it easier to torture) suspects of terrorism.
52% of Republicans would support delaying the 2020 election if Trump said that he thought it was necessary.
37% of Trump primary voters (and 41% of Cruz primary voters) support Trump’s “floated” idea of shutting down all mosques in the US.
45% of Republicans think the government should be able to shut down media outlets for inaccuracy (as opposed to 18% of Democrats).
Here is their page. Someone named Andy Zee, along with other people I’ve never or barely heard of, spoke at some sort of Refuse Facism event.
When I google the mailing address, I am able to connect it to an organization that operated during the Bush presidency called “ World Can’t Wait-Drive Out the Bush Regime.”
That organization was the brainchild of a woman named Deborah Sweet. Further googling seems to indicate that Ms.Sweet is the driving force behind the Nov 4th rallies. Their GoFundMe account is under her name.
Honestly it wouldn’t have shocked me to learn that this whole thing was some sort of elaborate 4chan hoax (NYT full-page ads and all) but this evidence seems to confirm it’s “legitimate”.
ETA: that’s some mighty-fine detective work.
I just came in to mention that I didn’t have statistically valid cites for the whole USA, but I CAN say that my workplace (a state system of higher education) was impacted by the BLM movement, in many important and measurable ways.
Chutzpah is killing your parents, and then asking the judge for mercy because you are an orphan. It’s also the left complaining that it’s just Trump supporters who want to prohibit protests among people they don’t like.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t want to prohibit anybody from protesting, or counter-protesting, or protesting counters.
Nor do I, but neither one of us lives in Berkeley or Charlottesville.
Regards,
Shodan
And it is the right who considers any form of criticism to be prohibition.
I certainly do not feel that there should be any non-violent protests that are prohibited, even if the protestors are protesting something that I am in favor of, like removing statues to those who betrayed their country in order to keep owning people.
I do feel as though it is perfectly within the rights of counter protesters to also show up in public spaces, and non-violently allow their voice to be heard, even if it means that the first group’s message gets a bit drowned out.
For some reason you seem to demonise the latter, while the former is lauded. Why not celebrate and support both?
If you say something horrible and asinine, I am not going to go to the gov’t to get them to make you stop, but I am going to tell you that you said something horrible and asinine. Remember, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence.
If I am at an anti-Trump protest and I see counter-protesters, I try to promote unity. I will go up to them and assure them that some liberals, including myself are also big defenders of the 2nd amendment. Then I’ll wink and make a friendly bang bang finger gesture.
They are so divisive that they never appreciate my efforts at unity, though.
Actually we consider attempts at prohibition to be prohibition. As happened, for instance, in Charlottesville, where some people wanted to protest the removal of a statue, and had to sue to get a permit.
And this also offers an example of why I don’t support the heckler’s veto, as you seem to do. The assistant head of the Virginia ACLU mentioned that the police overlooked or ignored incidents of violence the first night, looking for an excuse to declare the event an illegal assembly. The next night the statue protesters came prepared for violence, and things escalated from there.
Regards,
Shodan
It depends on which heckler’s veto you are talking about. The two definitions are quite different and distinct, and get conflated, I believe intentionally.
The official heckler’s veto is the idea that the protest is guaranteed to be so violent that the speech has to be shut down by the authorities. I’m not a big fan of that.
The unofficial heckler’s veto is when you just can’t get your voice heard, because you are outnumbered in the public square, like what happened at the white nationalist rallies last weekend. I fully support that, and I am not sure why you seem to be against it.
The fact that the police unwisely looked the other way a bit for the white nationalists the their first night in charlottesville was a problem, and I will agree helped lead to the escalation of violence, but I’m not sure why you are blaming the counter protestors that were there the next day for the event of the previous night.
And yeah, the nazi’s came ready for violence, as they seem to do to these events. Not really the fault of those opposing the violent nazis.
There is a certain irony to the idea of marching in protest of fascism. I mean, if the government is truly on a path to fascism, they will, from your action, be able to identify and point to those unpatriotic enemies of the state. Meaning that the protesters are facilitating the fascists by doing their, shall we say legwork, for them.
Both sides at protests this year have ‘come ready for violence’. Pretending that leftists haven’t (also) been doing horrible violent shit at some of these protests makes you seem unserious.
Nothing anti racist protesters have done is anywhere close to what the racists have done (which includes killing people).
The two sides are not comparable, any more than riots in the 60s during the Civil Rights movement were comparable to the terrorism inflicted against the Civil Rights advocates.
That really is the difference - white supremacists regularly use terrorism, and the anti racists do not. Terrorists are not the same as those who oppose terrorists.
Why make excuses for anyone’s illegal and violent acts?
Only once the govt has gone fascist. Until then you are marching and protesting against individual people who want to turn the govt into a facism.