How did the Limited Govt party become the Authoritarian party?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remind me which political party wants every institution up to and including the federal government to have offices devoted to promoting a political ideology (DEI), along with all kinds of incoherent regulations and policies regarding same?

And which political party wants everyone to pretend that boys can turn into girls and vice versa? And will try to drum out of office or otherwise publicly shame anyone with who argues otherwise?

What’s that you were saying about authoritarians?

Neither of what you are describing is authoritarianism. It is a shame you don't understand what compassion and understanding are.

When university professors can’t get hired without signing statements affirming their ideological commitment to anti-racism in, you know, astrophysics or something - is that authoritarian yet, or still no?

When science projects can’t get funding unless they bend the knee to the same amorphous political principles - still not authoritarian?

how is agreeing not to be a racist "political"?

How would it be if all of said professors were of color, would it be ok for them to not hire asian or white colleagues because of their biases?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP in fairness your line is fairly common on the left these days, so it’s not just you who’s delusional.

Quick flashback to the bad old days: remember when Steve Bannon said his goal was to “the deconstruction of the administrative state”?

I’m a little rusty on my history… but isn’t authoritarianism the opposite of this?

OP here and I have been a moderate for decades. Only in the 6 years have I consistently voted Democrat because of everything the Republicans have been throwing at us. There’s a difference between going overboard trying to make sure everyone’s rights are equal, versus going overboard trying to take away the rights of a vast number of American citizens. I don’t trust them anymore, and the Republicans would do well to realize that a lot of swing voters feel the same.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP in fairness your line is fairly common on the left these days, so it’s not just you who’s delusional.

Quick flashback to the bad old days: remember when Steve Bannon said his goal was to “the deconstruction of the administrative state”?

I’m a little rusty on my history… but isn’t authoritarianism the opposite of this?

OP here and I have been a moderate for decades. Only in the 6 years have I consistently voted Democrat because of everything the Republicans have been throwing at us. There’s a difference between going overboard trying to make sure everyone’s rights are equal, versus going overboard trying to take away the rights of a vast number of American citizens. I don’t trust them anymore, and the Republicans would do well to realize that a lot of swing voters feel the same.

Another thing the Republicans should take a note of. I as a swing voter have voted not FOR the Democrat in the last three elections, but AGAINST the Republican ridiculousness that was the candidate. And I know a lot of swing voters out there are doing the same. If they put the right candidate up that isn’t screeching election denial and taking rights away, Republicans will start winning for a change.

the problem the Republicans have is that they have no platform "for" anything. They want to promote tax cuts that undermine our budget and social policies that 65-70% of Americans disagree with. their foreign policy is isolationist, which goes against things like safe travel to other countries and balanced foreign trade. They are no longer a "conservative" party. The deal to bring actual conservatives together with Evangelicals and MAGAs is a frakenstien that requires all three, plus most independents to support in order to win.

In other words, if the GOP runs a DiSantis, the traditional conservtives will stay home. If they run a Hogan, the MAGAs stay home. You see the point, they don't have a winning platform and the lightning they captures in 2016 is likely not replicable in 2024.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It all comes down to who benefits from the use of government force. If the government is reinforcing the power of white Christian men with at least some money, it's all good. If it's eroding the authority and/or wealth of these people, it's bad.

The thing is, the bolded isn't true. No one is suggesting taking anything away from White Christian males. It is simply about having the playing field actually level. Since people like Donald Trump were born on third base and deride everyone else for being dumber or less hard working for their failures, it is about letting things be a true merirocracy. If you wanted that, you would be ok with the wealthy being able to leave 20 million dollars tax free and the rest being taxed heavily. But no, the GOP wants an oligarch class of permanent billionaires who buy and sell the government for their own purposes.

I don't think you can argue that white Christian males have the same kind of authority they had 60 years ago. They are probably even wealthier now than they used to be though.

I would argue that the US Senate and the US Supreme Court are over represented by religious fundementalists manifested by white christian males. Until that changes, their hold on our country will be disproportionate.

[Anonymous]

The GOP is the party of FEAR! They are weak cowards, punching at the weakest people they can find: undocumented immigrants, LGBTQ folk, transgender teens, poor women who can't afford another child, the disabled, the old, the the sick.

Pity them, but give them nothing, least of all respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remind me which political party wants every institution up to and including the federal government to have offices devoted to promoting a political ideology (DEI), along with all kinds of incoherent regulations and policies regarding same?

And which political party wants everyone to pretend that boys can turn into girls and vice versa? And will try to drum out of office or otherwise publicly shame anyone with who argues otherwise?

What’s that you were saying about authoritarians?

Neither of what you are describing is authoritarianism. It is a shame you don't understand what compassion and understanding are.

When university professors can’t get hired without signing statements affirming their ideological commitment to anti-racism in, you know, astrophysics or something - is that authoritarian yet, or still no?

When science projects can’t get funding unless they bend the knee to the same amorphous political principles - still not authoritarian?

how is agreeing not to be a racist "political"?

How would it be if all of said professors were of color, would it be ok for them to not hire asian or white colleagues because of their biases?

Those statements are absolutely not about “agreeing not to be a racist” - nice Motte & Bailey though!

Had you lived in East Germany, maybe you’d be scolding dissidents for complaining about loyalty oaths and whatnot - I mean, Communism’s just about equality! Why won’t you just say the words?

Anyway, when speech is compelled, it’s political

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remind me which political party wants every institution up to and including the federal government to have offices devoted to promoting a political ideology (DEI), along with all kinds of incoherent regulations and policies regarding same?

And which political party wants everyone to pretend that boys can turn into girls and vice versa? And will try to drum out of office or otherwise publicly shame anyone with who argues otherwise?

What’s that you were saying about authoritarians?

Thank you. Zero self-awareness, calling others "authoritarians."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remind me which political party wants every institution up to and including the federal government to have offices devoted to promoting a political ideology (DEI), along with all kinds of incoherent regulations and policies regarding same?

And which political party wants everyone to pretend that boys can turn into girls and vice versa? And will try to drum out of office or otherwise publicly shame anyone with who argues otherwise?

What’s that you were saying about authoritarians?

Neither of what you are describing is authoritarianism. It is a shame you don't understand what compassion and understanding are.

When university professors can’t get hired without signing statements affirming their ideological commitment to anti-racism in, you know, astrophysics or something - is that authoritarian yet, or still no?

When science projects can’t get funding unless they bend the knee to the same amorphous political principles - still not authoritarian?

how is agreeing not to be a racist "political"?

How would it be if all of said professors were of color, would it be ok for them to not hire asian or white colleagues because of their biases?

Those statements are absolutely not about “agreeing not to be a racist” - nice Motte & Bailey though!

Had you lived in East Germany, maybe you’d be scolding dissidents for complaining about loyalty oaths and whatnot - I mean, Communism’s just about equality! Why won’t you just say the words?

Anyway, when speech is compelled, it’s political

I’m sure you’re equally hopping mad about DeSantis and Youngkin squashing what teachers can teach in their states right? Right???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remind me which political party wants every institution up to and including the federal government to have offices devoted to promoting a political ideology (DEI), along with all kinds of incoherent regulations and policies regarding same?

And which political party wants everyone to pretend that boys can turn into girls and vice versa? And will try to drum out of office or otherwise publicly shame anyone with who argues otherwise?

What’s that you were saying about authoritarians?

Remind us what is so appalling abd authoritarian about principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion?

Are you the one who posted the anti-ADA screed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I used to thank god that we weren’t like other countries, that we wouldn’t have a group of jackboots show up and close our stores or universities, or ransack our homes, because of our democracy. But the governor of Florida just replaced everyone on staff and the curriculum with what he wanted. Came in and took it over, wiped everything out, replaced it all, because of his own political agenda.

Decades from now, students are going to be studying this era as a time when our country truly did hang on the precipice of losing our democracy. It really is frightening that so many people are rejoicing in this just because it matches their own personal views. But it doesn’t match half or more of the country’s views, which is why we have free speech in the constitution. This is supposed to be protected. I would feel the same way if it were in reverse and a liberal governor fired all of a college’s staff and completely took over because it was too conservative. It really is frightening what’s happening in parts of our country.

Honestly don't know which piece of lunacy to address first, but for starters: you do understand that one function of being the governor is appointing members to state boards, including state universities? For just a couple of examples of fellow governors doing just that, here's Newsom, Whitmer, Brown, and Inslee:
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/08/20/governor-newsom-announces-higher-education-appointments/
https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/news/press-releases/2022/02/18/governor-whitmer-makes-appointments-to-university-governing-boards-2022
https://around.uoregon.edu/content/governor-nominates-seven-seats-uo-board-trustees
https://www.washington.edu/staterelations/2013/07/19/governor-inslee-appoints-new-regents/#:~:text=Gov.%20Jay%20Inslee%20today%20announced%20the%20appointments%20of,are%20well-suited%20to%20the%20UW%20Board%20of%20Regents.
https://news.illinoisstate.edu/2023/02/governor-appoints-new-members-to-the-board-of-trustees-of-illinois-state-university/
https://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/university-illinois/pritzker-appoints-2-new-ui-trustees-reappoints-third/article_f3744fcb-be32-51e0-974d-4e171582946d.html
The rest of your post is full of hysterics that aren't worth anyone's time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remind me which political party wants every institution up to and including the federal government to have offices devoted to promoting a political ideology (DEI), along with all kinds of incoherent regulations and policies regarding same?

And which political party wants everyone to pretend that boys can turn into girls and vice versa? And will try to drum out of office or otherwise publicly shame anyone with who argues otherwise?

What’s that you were saying about authoritarians?

Neither of what you are describing is authoritarianism. It is a shame you don't understand what compassion and understanding are.

When university professors can’t get hired without signing statements affirming their ideological commitment to anti-racism in, you know, astrophysics or something - is that authoritarian yet, or still no?

Is it a public or private university? Does said educational establishment take federal dollars and thus need to adhere to federal social justice guidelines?

Generally speaking, why would it be a problem to agree to adhere to anti-racism tenants? I would not want my kids attending a school where being a racist is ok.

DP. Re: the bolded - this is exactly why governors can appoint whomever they wish to the boards of state universities. As for pledging allegiance to social justice guidelines, just no. Absurd overreach. Good luck with that in the next election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remind me which political party wants every institution up to and including the federal government to have offices devoted to promoting a political ideology (DEI), along with all kinds of incoherent regulations and policies regarding same?

And which political party wants everyone to pretend that boys can turn into girls and vice versa? And will try to drum out of office or otherwise publicly shame anyone with who argues otherwise?

What’s that you were saying about authoritarians?

Neither of what you are describing is authoritarianism. It is a shame you don't understand what compassion and understanding are.

When university professors can’t get hired without signing statements affirming their ideological commitment to anti-racism in, you know, astrophysics or something - is that authoritarian yet, or still no?

When science projects can’t get funding unless they bend the knee to the same amorphous political principles - still not authoritarian?

how is agreeing not to be a racist "political"?

How would it be if all of said professors were of color, would it be ok for them to not hire asian or white colleagues because of their biases?

Those statements are absolutely not about “agreeing not to be a racist” - nice Motte & Bailey though!

Had you lived in East Germany, maybe you’d be scolding dissidents for complaining about loyalty oaths and whatnot - I mean, Communism’s just about equality! Why won’t you just say the words?

Anyway, when speech is compelled, it’s political

Agreeing not to be racist is not the same as pledging fealty to the state. Please provide an example of what you are referring to, because what you are suggesting is not the same as authoritarianism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remind me which political party wants every institution up to and including the federal government to have offices devoted to promoting a political ideology (DEI), along with all kinds of incoherent regulations and policies regarding same?

And which political party wants everyone to pretend that boys can turn into girls and vice versa? And will try to drum out of office or otherwise publicly shame anyone with who argues otherwise?

What’s that you were saying about authoritarians?

Neither of what you are describing is authoritarianism. It is a shame you don't understand what compassion and understanding are.

When university professors can’t get hired without signing statements affirming their ideological commitment to anti-racism in, you know, astrophysics or something - is that authoritarian yet, or still no?

Is it a public or private university? Does said educational establishment take federal dollars and thus need to adhere to federal social justice guidelines?

Generally speaking, why would it be a problem to agree to adhere to anti-racism tenants? I would not want my kids attending a school where being a racist is ok.

DP. Re: the bolded - this is exactly why governors can appoint whomever they wish to the boards of state universities. As for pledging allegiance to social justice guidelines, just no. Absurd overreach. Good luck with that in the next election.

So you are ok with blatant discrimination, I take it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remind me which political party wants every institution up to and including the federal government to have offices devoted to promoting a political ideology (DEI), along with all kinds of incoherent regulations and policies regarding same?

And which political party wants everyone to pretend that boys can turn into girls and vice versa? And will try to drum out of office or otherwise publicly shame anyone with who argues otherwise?

What’s that you were saying about authoritarians?

Neither of what you are describing is authoritarianism. It is a shame you don't understand what compassion and understanding are.

When university professors can’t get hired without signing statements affirming their ideological commitment to anti-racism in, you know, astrophysics or something - is that authoritarian yet, or still no?

Is it a public or private university? Does said educational establishment take federal dollars and thus need to adhere to federal social justice guidelines?

Generally speaking, why would it be a problem to agree to adhere to anti-racism tenants? I would not want my kids attending a school where being a racist is ok.

DP. Re: the bolded - this is exactly why governors can appoint whomever they wish to the boards of state universities. As for pledging allegiance to social justice guidelines, just no. Absurd overreach. Good luck with that in the next election.

So you are ok with blatant discrimination, I take it.

Sorry, what was that? I couldn't hear you over the ridiculous hyperbole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remind me which political party wants every institution up to and including the federal government to have offices devoted to promoting a political ideology (DEI), along with all kinds of incoherent regulations and policies regarding same?

And which political party wants everyone to pretend that boys can turn into girls and vice versa? And will try to drum out of office or otherwise publicly shame anyone with who argues otherwise?

What’s that you were saying about authoritarians?

Neither of what you are describing is authoritarianism. It is a shame you don't understand what compassion and understanding are.

When university professors can’t get hired without signing statements affirming their ideological commitment to anti-racism in, you know, astrophysics or something - is that authoritarian yet, or still no?

When science projects can’t get funding unless they bend the knee to the same amorphous political principles - still not authoritarian?

how is agreeing not to be a racist "political"?

How would it be if all of said professors were of color, would it be ok for them to not hire asian or white colleagues because of their biases?

Those statements are absolutely not about “agreeing not to be a racist” - nice Motte & Bailey though!

Had you lived in East Germany, maybe you’d be scolding dissidents for complaining about loyalty oaths and whatnot - I mean, Communism’s just about equality! Why won’t you just say the words?

Anyway, when speech is compelled, it’s political

I’m sure you’re equally hopping mad about DeSantis and Youngkin squashing what teachers can teach in their states right? Right???

I think it's dumb & a bad precedent. I'd rather see them clean house at the Dept. of Ed and things like that - keep it orderly.

That said, AFAIK it's been more about getting rid of fluff than it has been, say, mandating creationism, so we'll see where it goes from here. Anyway, no, don't like it.