"all of this is coming from the Left, progressives, (il)liberals, the DNC, or whichever label you choose"
A statement that shows that you think all of those designations reduce to the same label, and that label in turn can be defined by the cookie-cutter caricature of your imagination.
You're also ignoring the dissent by Left-leaning writ…
"all of this is coming from the Left, progressives, (il)liberals, the DNC, or whichever label you choose"
A statement that shows that you think all of those designations reduce to the same label, and that label in turn can be defined by the cookie-cutter caricature of your imagination.
You're also ignoring the dissent by Left-leaning writers- not just by dour skeptics of the Democratic Party like Matt Taibbi (and Freddie DeBoer, Adolph Reed, Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan, etc.), but by comment writers more inclined to be sympathetic to the Democratic Party, like Ruy Texeira, who also publishes on Substack https://substack.com/profile/12224429-ruy-teixeira
And the reason you're doing this is because you have no interest in combining in a coalition of opposition to that strain of Democratic Party thought that indulges in scolding authoritarian excesses, but because you're out to put a patent the opposition as an action originating in the inherently virtuous nature of the political Right. Which is agitprop horseshit.
For someone out to make a comparison of the Democratic Party with Soviet tyranny, your padded-out list of accusations is pretty weak (numerals added):
"1)Censorship, 2)vaccine mandates, 3)mandatory DEI trainings at work, 4) you're born gay but gender and race are social constructs, 5) calls at the state level to abolish single-family zoning, 6) CRT and its offshoots taught in K-12, 7)DOJ weaponized against parents who complain, 8) sacrificing energy independence under the highly questionable conclusion that anthropogenic climate change requires it..."
Of the eight specifics on your laundry list, only one of them (2) has even been partially enacted as a Federal program; two of them (1, 3) are voluntary top-down owner/board of directors business decisions; two (4, 6) are recondite academic perspectives whose points have been vulgarized and twisted for political purposes both by axe-grinding special interests and by opponents who insist on partisan branding (see above); one (5) I know nothing about (your non-description doesn't help)- it may even be a good idea, and sounds more like a libertarian proposal than a statist over-regulation, but at any rate it sounds like Federal government influence is nil; one (8) is merely your partisan agitprop framing, which is not to be confused with established fact; and finally (7), which is a blatantly false and inflammatory charge couched in weasel language. The Department of Justice has been directed to investigate threats against school board members, teachers, and other employees in relation to the often threatening reaction over- but there's no "weaponization" about that, any more than the DoJ has been "weaponized" to investigate threats made against other government employees. The phone threats exist.
No one has ever been arrested at a school meeting for protesting CRT or school curriculum policies- at least not in my keyword search; the one guy, Scott Smith, arrested in Loudoun County, Virginia who called out AG Merrick Garland over the directive was being worked by the Right- Garland's directive wasn't referring to the man's arrest for his heated protest at a school board meeting (over his daughter's victimization as a result of negligent school policy, not connected to CRT or any controversy over course content) https://nypost.com/2021/10/13/dad-arrested-at-school-board-meeting-rips-ag-merrick-garland/
"A Virginia father who was arrested at a school board meeting has ripped Attorney General Merrick Garland for painting him as a domestic terrorist — saying he’d just been trying to raise the alarm about his daughter getting “sexually assaulted” in a school bathroom...." Then the Post uses a hyperlink in that passage to a different story about the Garland directive. Misleadingly. But attentive readers will note that neither Scott Smith or the incident that got him arrested are mentioned in that linked story. https://nypost.com/2021/10/07/schools-boards-persecute-dissident-parents/
To sum up: AG Garland's directive did not refer to Scott Smith by name; it made no reference to the specific incident that led to his arrest. But someone apparently convinced Smith that the directive was issued in reference to his own personal actions.
The people who are claiming (more like insinuating, as usual) that Merrick Garland issued that directive to victimize Scott Smith are dealing off the bottom of the deck. Here's Garland's memo, in full:
in other words, you got nothing to contradict me. Other than table-pounding, that is.
I agree with your statement that "most of the citizens want none of it". But that group includes people who identify on the Left, the Center, as Independents...the opposition is actually a big tent.
But, all you want to do is to mine the discontent for cheap partisan gain, by branding that opposition as an exclusive franchise of the Right Wing. A cheap, transparently phony tactic. Especially given that you're doing it on the Substack of Matt Taibbi, of all people.
I don't want to take 600 words to debate with you. I made a simple point. I never said there weren't people on the Left who were opposed to most of the things on my list. Nor did I hold up the Right as paragons of virtue.
I do believe we are dealing with a movement in this country, which likely has origins among the WEF/Davos crowd, and that movement has captured the DNC. The Republicans are largely feckless, and devoid of ideas, but they're not forcing change on people.
The job of Republicans is more about forcing the status quo on people. But that's largely a "both kindsa parties!" mission.
Don't get me wrong- I'm glad that the DNC isn't comprised of Leninist Bolsheviks, and that the people who attempt to frame the discourse that way are pretty much forced to leap on every last rhetorical gaffe and incident of high-handed bureaucracy they can find in order to drive that bogus narrative.
"all of this is coming from the Left, progressives, (il)liberals, the DNC, or whichever label you choose"
A statement that shows that you think all of those designations reduce to the same label, and that label in turn can be defined by the cookie-cutter caricature of your imagination.
You're also ignoring the dissent by Left-leaning writers- not just by dour skeptics of the Democratic Party like Matt Taibbi (and Freddie DeBoer, Adolph Reed, Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan, etc.), but by comment writers more inclined to be sympathetic to the Democratic Party, like Ruy Texeira, who also publishes on Substack https://substack.com/profile/12224429-ruy-teixeira
And the reason you're doing this is because you have no interest in combining in a coalition of opposition to that strain of Democratic Party thought that indulges in scolding authoritarian excesses, but because you're out to put a patent the opposition as an action originating in the inherently virtuous nature of the political Right. Which is agitprop horseshit.
For someone out to make a comparison of the Democratic Party with Soviet tyranny, your padded-out list of accusations is pretty weak (numerals added):
"1)Censorship, 2)vaccine mandates, 3)mandatory DEI trainings at work, 4) you're born gay but gender and race are social constructs, 5) calls at the state level to abolish single-family zoning, 6) CRT and its offshoots taught in K-12, 7)DOJ weaponized against parents who complain, 8) sacrificing energy independence under the highly questionable conclusion that anthropogenic climate change requires it..."
Of the eight specifics on your laundry list, only one of them (2) has even been partially enacted as a Federal program; two of them (1, 3) are voluntary top-down owner/board of directors business decisions; two (4, 6) are recondite academic perspectives whose points have been vulgarized and twisted for political purposes both by axe-grinding special interests and by opponents who insist on partisan branding (see above); one (5) I know nothing about (your non-description doesn't help)- it may even be a good idea, and sounds more like a libertarian proposal than a statist over-regulation, but at any rate it sounds like Federal government influence is nil; one (8) is merely your partisan agitprop framing, which is not to be confused with established fact; and finally (7), which is a blatantly false and inflammatory charge couched in weasel language. The Department of Justice has been directed to investigate threats against school board members, teachers, and other employees in relation to the often threatening reaction over- but there's no "weaponization" about that, any more than the DoJ has been "weaponized" to investigate threats made against other government employees. The phone threats exist.
No one has ever been arrested at a school meeting for protesting CRT or school curriculum policies- at least not in my keyword search; the one guy, Scott Smith, arrested in Loudoun County, Virginia who called out AG Merrick Garland over the directive was being worked by the Right- Garland's directive wasn't referring to the man's arrest for his heated protest at a school board meeting (over his daughter's victimization as a result of negligent school policy, not connected to CRT or any controversy over course content) https://nypost.com/2021/10/13/dad-arrested-at-school-board-meeting-rips-ag-merrick-garland/
"A Virginia father who was arrested at a school board meeting has ripped Attorney General Merrick Garland for painting him as a domestic terrorist — saying he’d just been trying to raise the alarm about his daughter getting “sexually assaulted” in a school bathroom...." Then the Post uses a hyperlink in that passage to a different story about the Garland directive. Misleadingly. But attentive readers will note that neither Scott Smith or the incident that got him arrested are mentioned in that linked story. https://nypost.com/2021/10/07/schools-boards-persecute-dissident-parents/
To sum up: AG Garland's directive did not refer to Scott Smith by name; it made no reference to the specific incident that led to his arrest. But someone apparently convinced Smith that the directive was issued in reference to his own personal actions.
The people who are claiming (more like insinuating, as usual) that Merrick Garland issued that directive to victimize Scott Smith are dealing off the bottom of the deck. Here's Garland's memo, in full:
https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1438986/download
You're in denial. It's all coercion, and it's coming from the Blue side of the State. Most of the citizens want none of it.
in other words, you got nothing to contradict me. Other than table-pounding, that is.
I agree with your statement that "most of the citizens want none of it". But that group includes people who identify on the Left, the Center, as Independents...the opposition is actually a big tent.
But, all you want to do is to mine the discontent for cheap partisan gain, by branding that opposition as an exclusive franchise of the Right Wing. A cheap, transparently phony tactic. Especially given that you're doing it on the Substack of Matt Taibbi, of all people.
I don't want to take 600 words to debate with you. I made a simple point. I never said there weren't people on the Left who were opposed to most of the things on my list. Nor did I hold up the Right as paragons of virtue.
I do believe we are dealing with a movement in this country, which likely has origins among the WEF/Davos crowd, and that movement has captured the DNC. The Republicans are largely feckless, and devoid of ideas, but they're not forcing change on people.
The job of Republicans is more about forcing the status quo on people. But that's largely a "both kindsa parties!" mission.
Don't get me wrong- I'm glad that the DNC isn't comprised of Leninist Bolsheviks, and that the people who attempt to frame the discourse that way are pretty much forced to leap on every last rhetorical gaffe and incident of high-handed bureaucracy they can find in order to drive that bogus narrative.
You're in denial.
Holy shit. You're right!!