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: 4
124
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: eluryh22

Oh, I agree that the matter is not about the silly "choice" coming up between Clinton and Trump.

That's nothing but Bread and Circuses/Smoke and Mirrors.

I've said my take on politics is basically an elaborate Role Playing Game.

I'm attempting to paint Hillary in a certain light? Perhaps. That's the way I see her.

The "amounts of money" ... etc. I disagree with a lot of the suppositions involved there, but indeed, that's not the topic here.

I'm not "glossing over" anything. This thread is not about Hillary, nor really, about Trump ... it's about what Trump has tapped into in the Republican party and in America.

This is a one-sided discussion. The OP is about the relationship between what the Republican Party is becoming and authoritarianism. It's not an attempt to compare the merits or failures of right and left. It's not attempting to be "even handed" or acknowledging that all who seek power over others are Authoritarian, no matter the color of their hat.




posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

I think it's absurd to claim that the Constitution sets up a system of government based on obstructionism.

Balance? Yes. Limited government? Yes.

Obstructionism and stagnation? No.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




You're making a gross generalization that simply isn't true.

There are many points of fact in the article that are unquestionable; they're quite simply known historical truths.

Your odd take on identity politics notwithstanding ... if you don't hear Republican's talking about "White Identity politics" quite simply, in my opinion, you just aren't listening or you don't really understand what Identity Politics is.

At any rate, all you've done here is merely typical ... you've errantly negated everything in the OP while offering no counter arguments and contributing nothing of substance.

Perhaps, if you'd seriously like to have a discussion, you'll bring out an actual quote from the article, make your argument for why it's false with real facts rather than opinion. You know, cogent discussion of a topic.


Your entire OP is the adopting of someone else's opinion as your own. The typical copy/paste, copy/paste, isn't much proof of any original thought, nor substance. So I'm not sure if you know anything, let alone anything about identity politics.

Yes I admit I might be wrong. Perhaps furnish me an example of the white identity politics among the GOP.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Why do you think I'm laughing so hysterically?

What a brilliant line though, I'm going to start using that every time someone disagrees with me.

"This is just another example of anti-white identity politics"...



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jlarzo
Honestly when youre perpetually poor at making decisions a la a democrat you need some authoritarianism in your life. Do y'all have problems with Court appointed gaurdianship for retarded people too?


Jesus #ing Christ.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So now you want to critique me? LOL pathetic.

For the record I also think you're a asinine, pedantic irritant that pretends to far more ability and knowledge than you exhibit or possess.

So, since I have no way to bar such rank projections of your own self doubt, and since you have nothing on-topic to offer, and since you don't have the faintest idea of how to have a productive, civil conversation ... I'll be ignoring you.

Enjoy the approbation of your "peers."
edit on 1-11-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Acceptance.

You clearly acknowledge Trump's victory and Hillary's defeat.

Good to see you working through the stages of grief so quickly!



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
New York Magazine? They have been debunked a long time ago. You are better off reading the National Enquirer.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Edumakated

I think it's absurd to claim that the Constitution sets up a system of government based on obstructionism.

Balance? Yes. Limited government? Yes.

Obstructionism and stagnation? No.


You only see it as obstructionism because it is your agenda that is being blocked. Those that are blocking view it as balance. The President isn't a dictator. His agenda can be rejected or accepted by those in Congress and the Senate. It is that simple.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Edumakated

I think it's absurd to claim that the Constitution sets up a system of government based on obstructionism.

Balance? Yes. Limited government? Yes.

Obstructionism and stagnation? No.


You only see it as obstructionism because it is your agenda that is being blocked. Those that are blocking view it as balance. The President isn't a dictator. His agenda can be rejected or accepted by those in Congress and the Senate. It is that simple.



First of all, you're the one that STATED that the government is intended to be obstructionist, so own your statement and don't try to put it off on me or my "agenda." You have no idea of what my "agenda" is, so that's another level of irrationality/empty rhetoric in your post.

No, those who are blocking view what they are doing as blocking; they stated as much nearly 8 years ago and many times since (and they plan to do it for the next four years, or until such time as they are back in power.)

No, the President isn't a dictator, agreed. His agenda can be rejected, etc. ... agreed, honestly that's just stating an obvious well-known fact.

However, the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH's function is to create laws that fulfil their obligations under the Constitution.

Their function is not SUPPOSED to be opposing the President in anything and everything, like fulfilling HIS Constitutional duties (like appointing judges and other officials.)

edit on 1-11-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: gernblan
New York Magazine? They have been debunked a long time ago. You are better off reading the National Enquirer.


Care to prove it?

How was New York Magazine "debunked"? Was this article "debunked"? Do you have anything to say on the topic of this article's argument or my highlights of same?

That's the topic.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Acceptance.

You clearly acknowledge Trump's victory and Hillary's defeat.

Good to see you working through the stages of grief so quickly!


You're living in Fantasy Land.

Enjoy it.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
From the article previously cited in the OP:



Trump’s campaign chairman, the Breitbart media chieftain Stephen Bannon, apparently has plans to build a cross-border movement of right-wing nationalist parties. (The editor of Breitbart UK is running to lead the UK Independence Party, under the slogan “Make UKIP Great Again.”) A recent Bloomberg Businessweek feature on these plans predicts Trump’s organization could evolve into “an American UK Independence Party that will wage war on the Republican Party.” But there is a crucial difference in design between the British political system, in which third parties win representation, and the American one. Trumpism (or Breitbartism) cannot win power without the Republican Party, just as the Republican Party can no longer win power without the extremists that define it.


One of the striking complaints made in the article I cited is that whether or not Trump wins or loses, TRUMPISM will survive. Quite likely we will see "TTTV" (Trump Truth Television) in some form regardless of the outcome.

Bannon doesn't have small desires.

It seems that Roger Ailes ether didn't fit into the plan or wasn't going to be in charge, as he seems to have left his temporary nest.

Fox News and the rise of Right Wing Media in this country has had a PROFOUND effect on our national character to date.

If these theories are correct, Trump loses (or wins) and this new far right/alt-right media cabal is formed ... the American people will be even further divided ...
edit on 1-11-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



So now you want to critique me? LOL pathetic.

For the record I also think you're a asinine, pedantic irritant that pretends to far more ability and knowledge than you exhibit or possess.

So, since I have no way to bar such rank projections of your own self doubt, and since you have nothing on-topic to offer, and since you don't have the faintest idea of how to have a productive, civil conversation ... I'll be ignoring you.

Enjoy the approbation of your "peers."


There you go using "critique" where you shouldn't again. If your opinion were of any special import I might care, but I do not.

My comment was directly on topic. You stated you agreed with (although I would argue you adopted your opinion from it) the article's description of the GOP, which started with "The party has grown increasingly reliant upon white identity politics to supply its votes", which I said was untrue. The article doesn't go on to prove that statement.

Since you are of the same opinion, maybe you can offer an example of the GOP not only becoming reliant upon, but even mentioning "white identity politics", you might have a case, and also some evidence that you are not adopting the opinions of someone else as your own. Until then, my "critique" stands.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joneselius
a reply to: Annee

I think it's pretty clear for everyone to see your future. I'll give you a hint 'Huxley'.


I've never read Huxley. I can think for myself.


You're just salivating over the prospect of this scientific dictatorship. There IS NO equality in globalism unless you can force every culture to abandon their heritage - convince the Muslims the Quran is wrong and then unite the different sects of Judaism. Good luck with that. Also what will you do with those pesky Buddhists who won't agree to any system?


That makes zero sense.


What would you have them 'protect the world' against? Polluters (where you gonna' put them)? Carbon criminals? How about the people who disagree with the utter insanity of the Liberal push for relativism in society? What about the people who, shock horror, disagree with leftism? In true lefty fashion are they demonized, made less human then annihilated?


Again, you make zero sense.


Something about you really annoys me. It's like mere facts bounce off you. How's Hillary btw?


Apparently, I'm supposed to agree with what you consider facts.

Hillary is a shark, just like the rest of the politicians - - - she just happens to be swimming in the direction I want to go. Wouldn't want to send a politically inexperienced orange guppy into International Politics (Oh, and anyone who thinks America isn't international - - you're living in the dark ages)


I mean COME ON "The party has grown increasingly reliant upon white identity politics" hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhahahahahahaha. You couldn't make this up!


You want to explain that in detail so everyone knows what you think is so funny?



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

My use of the word critique, as I explained last time you niggled on it, is a matter of style and tone that seems absolutely lost on you in your constant droning on about nothing. The fact that you think this is vital enough to bring up again, when apparently, you're so uninterested in what I have to say that you can't keep from commenting on it, is as you are so fond of saying "telling."

I can see that perhaps I was wrong about your defense of Trump; you probably feel that he is a kindred megalomaniac spirit -- does he make your heart go pitter patter again? It's been so long, hasn't it?

If "GOP Identity Politics" were my chosen topic, I would favor you with my thoughts. It isn't, so I won't.

Try quibbling with something factual in the OP with a factual and/or rational complaint, and I'll consider a response.

Otherwise, you can suck static.


edit on 1-11-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



My use of the word critique, as I explained last time you niggled on it, is a matter of style and tone that seems absolutely lost on you in your constant droning on about nothing. The fact that you think this is vital enough to bring up again, when apparently, you're so uninterested in what I have to say that you can't keep from commenting on it, is as you are so fond of saying "telling."

I can see that perhaps I was wrong about your defense of Trump; you probably feel that he is a kindred megalomaniac spirit.

If "GOP Identity Politics" were my chosen topic, I would favor you with my thoughts. It isn't, so I won't.

Try quibbling with something factual in the OP with a factual and/or rational complaint, and I'll consider a response.

Otherwise, you can suck static.


Critique is the wrong word because it means something completely different than what you think it does, no matter the style and tone you're after.

Your OP is someone else's opinion passed off as your own. If I have problems with the article I'll make sure to it up with the author, whom you failed to cite.

As I stated, the description of the GOP hinges on the bold assertion that "The party has grown increasingly reliant upon white identity politics to supply its votes, which has left an indelible imprint on not only the Republican Party’s function but also its form." That assertion is backed up with nothing.

In regards to that quote you explicitly stated: "I know that we've had arguments about the changing roles of the two parties in the last century, but this is one of the best descriptions of what I see shifting in the GOP that I have seen. "

It turns out it is a false description.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Jesus Christ.

Critique is an analysis of some other material usually a literary or artistic work of some kind, something usually meaningful or well-thought out at least in some way.

Using the term in a derogatory way, as I do particularly in regard to any of your efforts (or those of others) is a not-so-subtle mocking of the seriousness with which you take yourself.

Now that you've had a style lesson, enjoy listening to the peevish echoes of your own "thought."
edit on 1-11-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




Critique is an analysis of some other material usually a literary or artistic work of some kind, something usually meaningful or well-thought out at least in some way.




So now you want to critique me? LOL pathetic.


When you are an artistic or literary work, something meaningful or well thought out, I'll make sure to critique you.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Source

This article gives a really fulsome historical perspective on the current state of the GOP.

I had realized about a month or so ago, that rather than Trump representing the "death" of the Republcian Party ... he really represents a new beginning. It seems others share my conclusion:



Approaching the 2016 election from this historical perspective, in which Trump’s every boast, tweet, and threat disappears into the ether, may at first blush sound like a relief. It is the opposite. Trump is an extreme event, but Trumpism is no fluke. Its weaknesses are fleeting, and its strengths likely to endure. Far from an organization that is “probably headed toward a civil war” — as the Washington Post recently put it, summing up a rapidly congealing consensus — the Republican Party is instead more unified than one might imagine, as well as more dangerous. The accommodations its leaders have made to their erratic and delirious nominee underscore a capacity to go further and lower to maintain their grip on power than anybody understood. More consequentially, the horrors Trump has unleashed are the product of tectonic forces in American politics. Trump has revealed the convergence of two movements more extreme than anything in the free world that may yet threaten the democratic character most Americans take as their birthright.


Of course, a good portion of you will agree that Trump is an amazing force but disagree that the net effect of what he represents is more dangerous to the historical Republic than anything seen in our lifetimes, and certainly more dangerous than one old lady in a pantsuit that is a center-right war hawk.

I've placed this in the Mud Pit not to encourage the insults and garbage posts we've seen so many of lately, but merely so that ATS members can feel free to speak their minds without limitations of "political baiting" that limits other forums.

Feel free to represent your side as passionately as you wish, but please... for the sake of discussion, try to keep the gutter-snipe insults against each other to a minimum. (If you will.)




That the contemporary Republican Party shares a name with the Republican Party of the 1970s — or even of the ’80s or ’90s — has created massive confusion over just how distinct its worldview is. According to one measure of ideology used widely by political scientists, the most conservative Republican in the House 25 years ago, when the House attacked a Republican president for the heresy of increasing taxes, would be among the most liberal House Republicans today. “I’m a conservative from the conservative wing of the conservative movement,” Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said earlier this year, marveling at how he has become a mainstream figure among his peers. “I was always kind of a bomb-thrower from the right … it just shows you that we have shifted the center far to the right, in a good way.” Still, as the conservative movement has completed its conquest of the Republican Party, it has never resolved the dilemma that haunted it from the beginning. Conservative opposition to policies like business regulation, social insurance, and progressive taxation has never taken hold among anything resembling a majority of the public.


I know that we've had arguments about the changing roles of the two parties in the last century, but this is one of the best descriptions of what I see shifting in the GOP that I have seen.



The party has grown increasingly reliant upon white identity politics to supply its votes, which has left an indelible imprint on not only the Republican Party’s function but also its form. Right-wing populism has had the same character for decades — in 1950, Theodor Adorno described the fear of outsiders, and the veneration of law and order, as “the authoritarian personality”; in 1964, Richard Hofstadter described a similar tendency as “the paranoid style” — but until recently, those movements lived outside both political parties. The political scientists Jonathan Weiler and Marc Hetherington found that, as recently as 1992, the Republican and Democratic parties had an equal proportion of voters with an authoritarian personality. By Obama’s first term, authoritarian personalities identified overwhelmingly with the GOP. In its preference for simplicity over complexity, and its disdain for experts and facts, the party has steadily ratcheted down its standard of intellectually acceptable discourse: from a doddering Ronald Reagan to Dan Quayle to George W. Bush to Sarah Palin. From this standpoint, Trump is less a freakish occurrence than something close to an inevitability.


I stated, somewhere early on, that Trump perfectly reflects the "true self" of the modern Republican party. Rampant sexism, racism, homophobia and religious bigotry (toward anything not Fundamentalist Christian).

So, what say you ATS? Discuss the meat and potatoes?

... or fling more poo?


The Country Desperately Needs a Strong Leader Right Now , Unfortunately for you , Mr. Trump is Not Really the Republican you Imagine . He is though , someone who can Change the Face of Arrakis for the Better.



new topics

top topics



 
124
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join