It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The GOPs Age of Authoritarianism Has Only Begun - New York Magazine

page: 13
124
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

The authoritarianism that I am "worried by" (a point totally fabricated by you, as I am not worried and have not stated that I am.) or more accurately bringing focus to here is the growing trend among greater and greater portions of the US population (and by extension, the world population) to believe that government (in the special case of this discussion, a theoretical President Trump) has the authority (welcomed by many) to act AGAINST the long-established rights of individuals both citizens of the US and foreign nationals who come to this country with one goal in mind: to remove them.




Is there any evidence of a growing population, and specifically within the GOP, wanting to remove the rights US citizens and foreign nationals afforded them by the constitution and Bill of Rights?



NOW THERE is an excellent question! and is exactly what I wanted to discuss in this thread.

Some of the elements that I've mentioned are:

1. Contravening the First Amendment to target the religious beliefs of individuals in order to exclude them from entry into this country and/or from immigration and/or from naturalization.

2. A stated desire to increase the size and power of the INS (or similar government department) a thousand-fold to "immediately" begin the identification and removal of 12 - 15 million individuals.

There's two to chew on. I'm going to be away for a few hours.


Number 1 : Do you realise that entry to the US has been restricted for many years to certain groups and nationalities? I see no change here other than a focus on tightening borders to protect against an influx of immigrants from countries decimated by terrorists and extremists. The 1st Amendment was put in place for the people of the USA, not people from other countries who apply to come and live there.

Number 2 is a little more problematic. On the one hand the constitution applies to anyone who can lay their feet on US soil, however it does not exempt such an individual from adhering to the law. As such they should be punished under the law. Whether deportation is a fair punishment is quite a discussion.

However, in both cases, I am not sure there is evidence of any growing population of people that are pushing for deportation. Is there? If anything, I would say that Trump's position is a little softer than some of the historical positions in the GOP. His focus is on illegal immigrants who are dangerous criminals. His position on the majority of illegal immigrants (whose only crime is entering the country illegally) has softened dramatically and is more liberal than someone like Ted Cruz, for example. That softening along with his position on gay rights and abortion in relation to the more right leaning GOP members is at odds with a narrative of increasing authoritarianism as posited by the author of the article in your OP.
edit on 2/11/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

And even to the first point discussed, the intent is not to bar people for being Muslim but to bar them for being terrorist. Unfortunately, the one identifying characteristic the terrorists have in common with the refugees is their religion.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

In rough order of your post ...

Yes. Entry can be barred to citizens of certain countries, members of certain organizations, etc.

Entry cannot be barred to adherents of a religion; that would contravene the First Amendment.

I'm not sure you understood point #2 which regards a massive expansion of a governmental department (growing government.)



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: UKTruth

And even to the first point discussed, the intent is not to bar people for being Muslim but to bar them for being terrorist. Unfortunately, the one identifying characteristic the terrorists have in common with the refugees is their religion.


Trump said that he intended to ban Muslims.

Did he stutter? Was he lying? Or is this just the standard attempt to redefine one of Trump's more outlandish statements?



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

muslims have also said they will infiltrate our countries and breed their way to victory over hundreds of years. not sure why so many countries, especially christian countries have brought them en masse to live there. its following the exact gameplan islam has laid out.
edit on 3-11-2016 by TheScale because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You are not correct on point 1.
Your laws allow for the President to bar any group.
Regardless, the position on this has been changed to a country focus, so no different to restricting any other country.

For point 2 are you really concerned with headcount? Govt will reduce overall under the Republicans but some depts won't. So? Or is it remit that is concerning?
edit on 3/11/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Trump has already redefined his own position... i.e. He changed his approach to that issue.
Unless you want to hang on to an old position?



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Gryphon66

Trump has already redefined his own position... i.e. He changed his approach to that issue.
Unless you want to hang on to an old position?


Which time was he telling the truth?

I mean, when a candidate for President can't get their basic policy statements correct ...



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


.....and Pence is always in the blind.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Gryphon66

You are not correct on point 1.
Your laws allow for the President to bar any group.
Regardless, the position on this has been changed to a country focus, so no different to restricting any other country.

For point 2 are you really concerned with headcount? Govt will reduce overall under the Republicans but some depts won't. So? Or is it remit that is concerning?


No, our laws don't do that. The First Amendment to our Constitution very clearly limits the US Government from acting against any religion or to create any religious test as a point of our law.

Fundamentals.

I am concerned with a gross magnification of the size and power of the Government. I am concerned about the judgement of a man that thinks that 12 million people can simply be "moved out" of a country on a whim.

Reminds me of too many bad things from history.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Gryphon66


.....and Pence is always in the blind.



Good point.

It's literally like we're watching two different campaigns at times.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 06:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheScale
a reply to: Gryphon66

muslims have also said they will infiltrate our countries and breed their way to victory over hundreds of years. not sure why so many countries, especially christian countries have brought them en masse to live there. its following the exact gameplan islam has laid out.


Which Muslims have made those statements?

I'm sure you are confused why countries you think are "Christian" act the way they do? Perhaps it's because they are secular rather than theocratic?

Point us to this master plan of "Islam" then.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, but we have easy access to birth control. Any woman will take advantage of that. Except republicans, barefoot and 6 feet in the back of their man.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, but we have easy access to birth control. Any woman will take advantage of that. Except republicans, barefoot and 6 feet in the back of their man.



Well, unless a corporation's "religious beliefs" say you shouldn't have the requirements of basic health care ...

What an abomination of justice.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I wondered where the GOP base, the "true self", would go after 2016, but apparently they are going to remain in place and continued to be used by the feckless party establishment.

The source author makes a glaring error with this statement

until recently, those movements lived outside both political parties


No! Hofstadter explicitly discusses The John Birch Society, a solid wing within the GOP. The JBS is what WF Buckley Jr. warned his party about, not to give it power.


The John Birch Society emulates Communist cells and quasi-secret operation through “front” groups, and preaches a ruthless prosecution of the ideological war along lines very similar to those it finds in the Communist enemy. Spokesmen of the various fundamentalist anti-Communist “crusades” openly express their admiration for the dedication and discipline the Communist cause calls forth.


Hofstadter's original article--The Paranoid Style in American Politics

The GOP gave power to this wing, to the point where it has taken over. Interesting that the Koch family helped develop the early JBS movement, and both the JBS paranoid ideology and the Koch Brothers fantastical Libertarian ideology have infused their poison into the GOP, allowing for this paranoia and fantasy to go mainstream.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Trump said that he intended to ban Muslims.

Did he stutter? Was he lying? Or is this just the standard attempt to redefine one of Trump's more outlandish statements?


I would go for all 3!



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It does? Could have fooled me with the way certain groups act about it. It seems to me that the first amendment religious protections only apply when they are a convenient means of protecting the left's agenda.

What about religious objections to being forced into insurance policies that cover contraceptive methods considered abortifacients or outright covering abortions themselves? Where does that cherished religious protection go then?

Answer: Out the window.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: desert

Excellent point.

The meat of the article I sourced in the OP is okay. The author does fail on a couple of points of fact, and of course, the tone of the article is, as some pointed out here, extremely partisan.

Still, truth is truth, and facts are facts.

The American Republican party has nursed a core authoritarianism for at least a half century and possibly more.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Can you please explain how allowing children to die from curable illnesses serves the left? Now they are going state by state to extend the religious exemptions further, as expected:

"Such legal exemptions in Idaho and other states mean, for example, that if a parent withholds medical treatments for an ailing child and instead opts for spiritual treatment through prayer, the child will not to be considered “neglected” under the law, even if he or she dies. These exemptions are meant to accommodate the teachings of some religious groups, such as Christian Scientists and the Idaho-based Followers of Christ. Some of these groups urge and, in the case of Followers of Christ, sometimes mandate the use of faith-based healing practices in lieu of medical science."
www.pewresearch.org...

This case here has caused a cry for a repeal, but the legislature is a religious body and cold:
"All five who died in 2013 were newborns. Causes of death included birth-related respiratory ailments, intestinal blockages, and sepsis."

Read more here: www.idahostatesman.com...=cpy



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

As you well know politicians constantly flip flop or if you are bring kind, refine. We all know the other candidate has changed her positions many times, so why not take Trumps last position?
You need to move on and debate the actual positions being taken.




top topics



 
124
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join