Desantis is a POS and needs his own thread

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

4 hours ago, Poe It Up said:

Why would I be discussing gay people with my grandchildren? You’re a strange dude. 

Yeah, I try to ignore my kids' questions as much as possible too. That's what school is fo...well they'll find out about gays in their dorm at Bob Jones anyway.

[Pig Bellmont 8,718]

 

[Poe It Up 126]

26 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Yeah, I try to ignore my kids' questions as much as possible too. That's what school is fo...well they'll find out about gays in their dorm at Bob Jones anyway.

All of my children are under 5. If they don’t understand gay and straight by college, well, then I guess the world needs ditch diggers too. 

[WhatTheBuck 28,781]

40 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

 

I saw yesterday that Warren is suing DeSantis to get his job back.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/17/1117892818/suspended-florida-prosecutor-andrew-warren-sues-governor-ron-desantis-

[troph 24,798]

Listened to an interview today where the discussion was about the grip the far right has on republican politics and one reason is the vast majority of evangelicals really believe we are trying to convince their kids to change their gender. Of course it continues across various other topics ending in a view that if the democrats are allowed to win, their way of life will vanish. Talk about a panic attack. 
 

We aren’t enticing kids with lollipops and taking them to Sunday gay school. none of us want your straight kids, we just don’t want your queer kids on the street or worse dead by suicide. And the examples of both of those outcomes are too numerous to count. 

[Anastasis 23,469]

45 minutes ago, troph said:

Listened to an interview today where the discussion was about the grip the far right has on republican politics and one reason is the vast majority of evangelicals really believe we are trying to convince their kids to change their gender.

The evangelicals never would have gotten the toe hold they did without the coalescence that was initiated by Roe. It's really amazing the wide ranging political consequences of that decision. 

[Brisketexan 105,139]

The evangelicals never would have gotten the toe hold they did without the coalescence that was initiated by Roe. It's really amazing the wide ranging political consequences of that decision. 

They didn’t care about Roe. They were lost when they couldn’t coalesce around racism, because it was so abhorrent. Roe gave them something to use as a proxy. But it’s all good now, because they’re back to being open and shameless about the racism.

Everything old is new again.

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,674]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The evangelicals never would have gotten the toe hold they did without the coalescence that was initiated by Roe. It's really amazing the wide ranging political consequences of that decision. 

Troll. It wasn't initiated by Roe, there was a concerted political strategy to sell "life begins at conception" to get the (previously not on-board) Baptist coalition onboard as pro-fetus along with the papists, so they could move together as power brokers in support of a christian theocratic state. Quite sure this isn't the first you've heard of this. But sure, grass-roots opposition to Roe (rolls eyes)

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,674]

brisket beat me to it  [surly equivalent of "Simpsons did it"?]

[mchookem 16,336]

12 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

Why do idiot right wingers immediately think any discussion of homosexuality means teaching about sexual acts?  Does it not occur to them for a second that that's not how we teach about heterosexuality either?  It isn't an immediate discussion of heterosexual sex?  

Can't see past their own Hunter's dicks.  It's amazing.

fifeverybody

Edited August 19, 2022 by mchookem

[Anastasis 23,469]

I understand that we are dealing with counterfactuals here, but I think there is a pretty broadly accepted view that the Roe decision was a instigating/contributing factor to the evangelical take over of the GOP starting in the 1980's. 

[Anastasis 23,469]

17 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

Troll. It wasn't initiated by Roe, there was a concerted political strategy to sell "life begins at conception" to get the (previously not on-board) Baptist coalition onboard as pro-fetus along with the papists, so they could move together as power brokers in support of a christian theocratic state. Quite sure this isn't the first you've heard of this. But sure, grass-roots opposition to Roe (rolls eyes)

Lots of brain damage baked into this post.  Congrats. 

[Brisketexan 105,139]

I understand that we are dealing with counterfactuals here, but I think there is a pretty broadly accepted view that the Roe decision was a instigating/contributing factor to the evangelical take over of the GOP starting in the 1980's. 

And what was the instigating factor in evangelicals who previously didn’t give a shit about abortion and actually had no theological conflict with it deciding to coalesce around Roe? Come on. You can say it. They know.

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,674]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Lots of brain damage baked into this post.  Congrats. 

As you are likely aware, it's the well-sourced and -researched truth. Your attempt at contrarian intellectual has deteriorated into petty, transparent insults.

[Anastasis 23,469]

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/08/1097514184/how-abortion-became-a-mobilizing-issue-among-the-religious-right

Spoiler

How abortion became a mobilizing issue among the religious right

NPR's Michel Martin speaks with Kristin Kobes Du Mez, professor of history and gender studies at Calvin University, about how evangelicals shaped the debate over abortion in the United States.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

If the Supreme Court does end up overturning Roe v. Wade, as last week's leaked draft opinion would suggest it is about to do, it would be considered a huge victory for religious conservatives, who've been pushing for such an outcome for decades, and also for political conservatives, who have relied on the religious right as the fuel for their broader movement. That suggests that opposition to abortion rights is the overwhelming priority for religious conservatives and that it's always been that way. But we wondered if that's really true, and if so, why?

And that led us to Kristin Kobes Du Mez. She's been thinking about, researching and writing about these issues for years in her work as a professor of history and gender studies at Calvin University in Grand Rapids, Mich. She also identifies as an evangelical Christian. She says that it wasn't until the late 1970s that abortion became a mobilizing force for the religious right. Before that, she told us there was actually a diversity of opinion about abortion in evangelical spaces.

KRISTIN KOBES DU MEZ: In the late 1960s, we have this remarkable issue of Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of American evangelicalism, discussing this question of abortion. And the conclusion is that it's a very complicated moral issue. So there are theologians discussing precisely when ensoulment happens - when does the fetus become an actual life? - and weighing the complicated issues not just in terms of rape and incest, but also the health and well-being of the mother and the family. And, yes, the Southern Baptist Convention comes out in favor of opening up access to abortion in many cases in 1971, and then they reaffirmed that in 1974 and in 1976, so after Roe v. Wade.

But what happens in the 1970s is, first of all, with the passing of Roe v. Wade, you see a spike in the number of abortions. And that causes many Americans, not just evangelicals, to kind of rethink is this what we wanted? But I think more importantly, you have the rise of second-wave feminism and, in conservative, white, evangelical spaces, a real backlash against feminism. And over the course of that decade, abortion becomes linked to feminism. And so you see the sentiment start to shift so that in 1979, when political activist Paul Weyrich identifies abortion as a potential to really mobilize conservative evangelicals politically, to help build the Moral Majority, then it is a very effective mechanism for doing so. And from 1979 on, that's when you see a real kind of shrinking of space within conservative evangelicalism to have any view on abortion that isn't strictly and staunchly pro-life, life begins at conception.

MARTIN: I'm still so interested in why - why this over other issues? In this country, the lack of access to routine health care, particularly compared to that of peer nations - that's been a fact of life for years, and that has resulted in some terrible outcomes. I don't think that's a secret. I mean, there have been prominent evangelical leaders, like - I'm thinking about the Reverend Harry Jackson Jr., for example, who wrote about being nearly bankrupted by his battle with cancer or people whose lack of access to prenatal care has led to shocking maternal mortality rates in this country, particularly among Black and brown women and Indigenous women. And I was just wondering why these issues have never surfaced to the same degree. I mean, one would think that if you adopt a perspective that values and reveres the sanctity of life, that it would be across the life spectrum. And that's not even addressing issues like the death penalty. I mean, that's a separate issue. But just the question of keeping women alive during and after childbirth - that would seem to be something that would have equal weight, but it doesn't. And I was just wondering if you have a theory about why that is.

DU MEZ: You're right. It does not. Now, there is a minority of evangelicals, of white evangelicals who do embrace this holistic life commitment, including the death penalty and pro-gun legislation and pro-health care, universal health care. But that is a definite minority. Among many white evangelicals, their moral system is one that really embraces an individualistic ethos or ethic, really. And so we are all to kind of fend for ourselves. And it is one that pushes back against systemic issues or a systemic way of understanding inequality, understanding things like racism or, you know, access to health care.

And so abortion is an issue that fits well with this individualistic framework in the way that they approach it. And so they will say this is - you know, this is a life of a human being, and it's just a clear-cut case, and it is an innocent life. And so in cases like the death penalty or even in - sometimes this is extended to discussions of health care. Well, if you had been more responsible, if you had a higher income, if you - you know, there are things you could have done here, whereas abortion, it seems very simple or even simplistic.

But I should also add that abortion - we need to understand how abortion is also situated in terms of evangelical gender ideals. And for evangelicals, conservative evangelicals, gender difference is really foundational to their understanding of the social order. And they believe that God created men and women to be very different, even opposites. And the women's primary calling is that of wife and mother. And so abortion also really severs that kind of biological or social relationship or threatens to do so. And for that reason, also, abortion is such a priority for evangelicals because it kind of strikes at the heart of their understanding of women and men and their understanding of how God has ordered society.

MARTIN: So that leads to my next question about - I think many people remain puzzled by evangelical support for former President Trump. I mean, many people saw it as extremely odd that conservative Christians would align with a candidate who would seem to have violated their principles and values in so many ways. Many people say that it all comes down to the Supreme Court picks and overturning Roe, that it was basically transactional, that he promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe, and so that was the basis of that. Do you buy that?

DU MEZ: Well, I think that that thesis really ignores the grassroots support for Trump among white evangelicals early in the primary season. As early as August of 2015, we can see the support for Donald Trump emerging among the white evangelical base. And so Trump would not have secured the nomination had it not been for this support among white evangelicals. But also, if we look at the election of Trump and then early into his presidency and really throughout his presidency, we don't see a lot of evidence that suggests that white evangelicals were really holding their noses to vote for Trump, despite the fact that he didn't really appear to model this morality that they had long championed, the Moral Majority. And he certainly wasn't the poster boy for family values, but he did promise to fight for them. He promised to advance their cause, and that's why many voted for him. And they certainly were very happy when they saw the Supreme Court choices.

Now, you could suggest that any Republican candidate would have - potential candidate - would have also appointed similar justices to the court. But what I did see in the wake of the leak of this preliminary document is I saw a lot of not just celebration across the evangelical world on this potential decision, but I also saw a lot of these pro-Trump evangelicals really kind of sticking it to the never-Trump evangelicals, saying, see - not just we were right, but really shaming anybody who didn't vote for Trump out of these concerns about his morality or his authoritarian tendencies and saying, see? We were right. The ends justifies the means.

MARTIN: That was Kristin Kobes Du Mez, professor of history and gender studies at Calvin University. Her latest book is called "Jesus And John Wayne." Professor Du Mez, thank you so much for being with us and sharing this expertise with us.

DU MEZ: Thank you. It's good to be with you.

MARTIN: And if you'd like to hear more of my conversation with Kristin Kobes Du Mez, you can download NPR's Consider This podcast.

 

[Anastasis 23,469]

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/22/1106863232/evangelicals-didnt-always-play-such-a-big-role-in-the-fight-to-limit-abortion-ac

Spoiler

Evangelicals didn't always play such a big role in the fight to limit abortion access

Facebook

Twitter

Flipboard

Email

June 22, 20224:35 PM ET

Heard on All Things Considered

RUND ABDELFATAH

Twitter

LISTEN· 7:207-Minute ListenAdd toPLAYLIST

Download

Embed

Transcript

For years, Evangelical Christian political groups have mobilized around limiting access to abortion. But Evangelicals were not always so involved in this fight.

AILSA CHANG, HOST:

As the current Supreme Court session is winding down, the country is still waiting for the final decision on a case that could result in overturning Roe v. Wade. When Justice Samuel Alito's draft opinion was leaked last month, many anti-abortion advocates gathered near the Supreme Court to celebrate the draft, which would overturn Roe v. Wade.

For years, evangelical Christian political groups have helped lead the charge around limiting access to abortion, but that was not always the case. Evangelicals were not always so involved in this fight. NPR's podcast Throughline traced that history, and we're going to return to that story now. Throughline host Rund Abdelfatah says opposition to abortion has become so associated with evangelical Christians that it seems like that's the way it's been all along. But...

RUND ABDELFATAH, BYLINE: The Southern Baptist Convention - they actually passed resolutions in 1971, 1974 and 1976, after Roe v. Wade, affirming the idea that women should have access to abortion for a variety of reasons and that the government should play a limited role in that matter, which surprised us. The experts we talked to said white evangelicals at that time saw abortion as largely a Catholic issue.

CHANG: So why the shift? Well, in short, she says desegregation. In 1971, two years before Roe v. Wade, there was a Supreme Court case that began to pull white evangelicals into politics. Rund and her co-host Ramtin Arablouei dove into the story of that case, known as Green v. Connally, and how it ties to the efforts to overturn Roe.

ABDELFATAH: Segregation in public schools had been outlawed since 1954, but changes on the ground were really slow...

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

DWIGHT EISENHOWER: Southern states have instituted public school plans...

ABDELFATAH: ...And complicated.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

EISENHOWER: ...For gradual progress in the enrollment and attendance of school children of all races.

LISA HARPER: White supremacy is threatened at the deepest level. It's an existential threat.

ABDELFATAH: This is Lisa Harper. She's written several books on Christianity, including "Left Right & Christ: Evangelical Faith In Politics."

RANDALL BALMER: In Holmes County, Mississippi, the first year of desegregation, the number of white students in the public schools decreased from 700 some to 28.

RAMTIN ARABLOUEI, BYLINE: This is religious historian Randall Balmer.

BALMER: The second year of desegregation, the number of white students in the public schools in Holmes County decreased to zero.

ABDELFATAH: So where were these white students going? Well, they enrolled in private so-called segregation academies run by evangelical leaders as tax-exempt religious schools.

BALMER: And a group of parents in Holmes County, Mississippi, said, this isn't right.

ABDELFATAH: And they won.

BALMER: And the gist of the decision was that any organization that engages in racial discrimination or racial segregation is not, by definition, a charitable institution. Therefore, it has no claims on tax-exempt status.

ARABLOUEI: Many white evangelical leaders relied on those tax exemptions to operate their private, segregated schools in places like Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama and Virginia. And they felt entitled to those tax exemptions on religious grounds.

BALMER: The alarm begins to grow among various evangelical leaders, including Jerry Falwell, who, of course, had his own segregation academy in Lynchburg, Va.

ABDELFATAH: The name Jerry Falwell might sound familiar because he'd go on to become a leading figure of the religious right and one of the architects of the Moral Majority, a Republican political action group that would come to play an important role in American politics.

ARABLOUEI: Randall Balmer says the Green v. Connally loss mobilized a lot of evangelical leaders like Falwell.

HARPER: They lost the bid to protect white space once again.

ARABLOUEI: Around this time, a conservative political activist named Paul Weyrich was trying really hard to grow the Republican Party base.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

PAUL WEYRICH: So many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome - good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote.

BALMER: And he's the person who understood the electoral potential of white evangelicals. And he set out to mobilize them.

ARABLOUEI: The question was, how?

BALMER: Weyrich understood that racism - and let's just call it what it is - was unlikely to be a galvanizing issue among grassroots evangelicals.

ABDELFATAH: So he needed to find another issue. At the time, evangelicals were concerned about all sorts of things - government overreach, for one, and also social changes around roles of women, gay rights and free speech. Then in 1976, something unexpected happened.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Good evening. Shortly before dawn, Jimmy Carter reached the end of his...

ARABLOUEI: Jimmy Carter, a Southern Baptist evangelical and Sunday school teacher, was elected president of the United States. Yet even as Carter became the face of evangelicals, he quickly began to lose support among them.

BALMER: This is the great paradox surrounding Jimmy Carter in his career, is that he's the person who begins to mobilize evangelical voters, or at least to awaken them about the political process. And then, of course, through the machinations of Paul Weyrich and Jerry Falwell and others, this same group of people turn radically against Jimmy Carter four years later.

ABDELFATAH: Carter didn't share a lot of their conservative views. So during Carter's presidency, Randall Balmer says that Weyrich continued searching for that holy grail of issues, the thing that had the potential to really unite evangelicals around the Republican Party. And in 1978, five years after Roe v. Wade, it finally hit him.

BALMER: I was reading through Weyrich's papers, midterm election, 1978, and it's almost like the papers begin to sizzle because Weyrich's - I found it. This is the issue that's going to work for us in order to mobilize grassroots evangelical voters.

ABDELFATAH: Abortion.

ARABLOUEI: Because while many evangelicals weren't initially all that bothered by Roe v. Wade, a few years on, the number of abortions had begun to climb, which made some evangelicals kind of uneasy. Weyrich saw that uneasiness as an opportunity.

ABDELFATAH: He teamed up with some prominent anti-abortion activists and helped amplify resistance to abortion among evangelicals. It worked. In 1979, the Moral Majority was formed. They threw their support behind Republican candidate Ronald Reagan, and Reagan won. This began the close relationship between the Republican Party and white evangelicals.

CHANG: Rund Abdelfatah and Ramtin Arablouei are the hosts of NPR's Peabody-winning history podcast Throughline. You can find it wherever you listen to podcasts.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

 

None of the shit I am saying is controversial. But carry on CR warriors. 

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,674]

Exactly my point-- evangelicals latched on later because they saw that the pro-fetus stance could align with their views of gender hierarchy and rigidity, and they saw this could help them gain power for a christofascist state.  You agree with me but say I have brain damage ... interesting.

 

[Anastasis 23,469]

1 minute ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

Exactly my point-- evangelicals latched on later because they saw that the pro-fetus stance could align with their views of gender hierarchy and rigidity, and they saw this could help them gain power for a christofascist state.  You agree with me but say I have brain damage ... interesting.

 

I'm sorry, what do you disagree with in this post that you negged?

The evangelicals never would have gotten the toe hold they did without the coalescence that was initiated by Roe. It's really amazing the wide ranging political consequences of that decision. 

[Satchel 6,938]

56 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

Troll. It wasn't initiated by Roe, there was a concerted political strategy to sell "life begins at conception" to get the (previously not on-board) Baptist coalition onboard as pro-fetus along with the papists, so they could move together as power brokers in support of a christian theocratic state. Quite sure this isn't the first you've heard of this. But sure, grass-roots opposition to Roe (rolls eyes)

Very true. There was a time when the former Baptist pope (WA Criswell))  and his followers were very much pro choice and not at all opposed to abortion.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Satchel

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,674]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I'm sorry, what do you disagree with in this post that you negged?

The evangelicals never would have gotten the toe hold they did without the coalescence that was initiated by Roe. It's really amazing the wide ranging political consequences of that decision. 

Goddamn, I even italicized my response for you. Again... Roe didn't do shit, in terms of causing some swell of outrage. Eventually, there was an orchestrated, disingenuous power grab to get Baptists to coalesce with catholics, after power brokers determined abortion could be weaponized to create a theocratic movement. 

[StassneyHorn 6,575]

Do we think girl dads will #girldad at their raped daughter’s forced births?

[Anastasis 23,469]

9 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

Goddamn, I even italicized my response for you. Again... Roe didn't do shit, in terms of causing some swell of outrage. Eventually, there was an orchestrated, disingenuous power grab to get Baptists to coalesce with catholics, after power brokers determined abortion could be weaponized to create a theocratic movement. 

It is certainly amazing that you type the above and at the same time argue that Roe was not a key initiating moment in the evangelical take over of the GOP.  

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,674]

The bolded is true and fuck your purposely obtuse pedantry 

[Anastasis 23,469]

8 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

The bolded is true and fuck your purposely obtuse pedantry 

We're back to counterfactuals, but I think that the US political landscape would be in a much better position today in the world where the Roe decision decades ago doesn't effect/amplify the influx of evangelicals leading the political strategy of the GOP. 

Edited August 19, 2022 by Anastasis

[Hookah Horns 3,083]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

We're back to counterfactuals, but I think that the US political landscape would be in a much better position today in the world where the Roe decision decades ago doesn't effect/amplify the influx of evangelicals leading the political strategy of the GOP. 

If it wasn't abortion it would've been some other contrived shit. 

[tx 3 putt 76,958]

7 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

If it wasn't abortion it would've been some other contrived shit. 

[Dnaguy 11,964]

2 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

If it wasn't abortion it would've been some other contrived shit. 

Yes and no.

Abortion worked / works bc it can be packaged so well.

It’s the perfect wedge issue really.

[Captainant 27,668]

1 hour ago, Dnaguy said:

Yes and no.

Abortion worked / works bc it can be packaged so well.

It’s the perfect wedge issue really.

Well, that and evangelicals aren't known for their critical thinking skills. Just look at Annie, he's got to lie to defend his fabricated position that Roe was some galvanizing moment. There's some good write-ups that have good sourcing to explain the change over time:

Quote

Support for abortion

Early on, many evangelicals, including Southern Baptists, saw opposition to legal abortion as a “Catholic issue.”

A 1970 poll by the Baptist Sunday School board found that a majority of Southern Baptist pastors supported abortion in a number of instances, including when the woman’s mental or physical health was at risk or in the case of rape or fetal deformity.

The SBC passed its first resolution on abortion two years before the Roe decision. While the Convention never supported the right of a woman to have an abortion at her request for any reason, the resolution did acknowledge the need for legislation that would allow for some exceptions.

In fact, many Southern Baptists saw the Roe decision as drawing a needed line between church and state on matters of morality and state regulation. A Baptist Press article just days after the decision called it an advancement of religious liberty, human equality and justice.

The Convention affirmed this resolution in 1974 after Roe was decided. A 1976 resolution condemned abortion as “a means of birth control” but still insisted the decision ultimately remained between a woman and her doctor.

A 1977 resolution clarified the Convention’s position, reaffirming its “strong opposition to abortion on demand.” However, it also reaffirmed the Convention’s views about the limited role of government and the right of pregnant women to medical services and counseling. This resolution was affirmed again in 1979.

Fetus as a person

Later that year, however, as an ultra-conservative faction within the denomination acquired power from more moderate leaders, things began to change.

Starting in 1980, Convention resolutions took a hard turn against abortion access. A “Resolution on Abortion” declared “that abortion ends the life of a developing human being” and called for legal measures “prohibiting abortion except to save the life of the mother.”

Another interesting shift happened in that resolution. Instead of referring to “fetal life,” as did earlier resolutions, the 1980 resolution called fetuses “unborn” or “pre-born” human life or “persons.” This shift in language made a significant change to the status of the fetus. It was no longer a developing organism dependent on a woman’s body, but rather it was a full human being with the same status and human rights as the women. A 1984 resolution named a fetus “a living individual human being.”

They were so upset, they passed and incorporated several resolutions clarifying their nuanced position in support of abortion. Until the 80s came along and they got co-opted by extremists that changed the script from a concern of government intrusion into a healthcare decision alllll the way to controlling women as if they were chattel. 

Really strong stuff from annie, I'm sure he's convincing his peers sack and poe and other folks with an abusers mindset that it's all those damn women's fault for being such sluts

[troph 24,798]

8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

The evangelicals never would have gotten the toe hold they did without the coalescence that was initiated by Roe. It's really amazing the wide ranging political consequences of that decision. 

That was the story 50 - 20 years ago and the how roe was used has been debated above - clearly it was and clearly evangelicals rallied around it (why and how isn’t my argument to have at this time), this interview I listened to was about the last 5-8 years and the current expulsion of moderates out of the party.  The current evangelical fears are very much related to the gay and trans agenda and their children. As if destroying us will save their queer kids. Ironically destroying us will only drive their queer kids to either their own destruction or more quickly into the rainbow family and permanently away from them. To brisket’s point about racism, that’s bedrock and has never changed. 

Edited August 19, 2022 by troph

[Hmbre97 6,308]

Anastasis is the derka of CR

[Fudge Nuggets 19,190]

8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Lots of brain damage baked into this post.  Congrats. 

Translation:  "Y'all called me out on my bullshit so you're being nothing but a bunch of stupid doo-doo heads."

[troph 24,798]

4 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Translation:  "Y'all called me out on my bullshit so you're being nothing but a bunch of stupid doo-doo heads."

User name and all. 

[VRHorn 718]

I mean, even the link @Anastasis posted says this:

 

But what happens in the 1970s is, first of all, with the passing of Roe v. Wade, you see a spike in the number of abortions. And that causes many Americans, not just evangelicals, to kind of rethink is this what we wanted? But I think more importantly, you have the rise of second-wave feminism and, in conservative, white, evangelical spaces, a real backlash against feminism.

 

[GopherRock 1,765]

9 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

They didn’t care about Roe. They were lost when they couldn’t coalesce around racism, because it was so abhorrent. Roe gave them something to use as a proxy. But it’s all good now, because they’re back to being open and shameless about the racism.

Everything old is new again.

Go read some of Jerry Falwell's speeches pre-Reagan.

[Anastasis 23,469]

 

3 hours ago, VRHorn said:

I mean, even the link @Anastasis posted says this:

 

But what happens in the 1970s is, first of all, with the passing of Roe v. Wade, you see a spike in the number of abortions. And that causes many Americans, not just evangelicals, to kind of rethink is this what we wanted? But I think more importantly, you have the rise of second-wave feminism and, in conservative, white, evangelical spaces, a real backlash against feminism.

 

 I think that the rest of the paragraph is relevant to the discussion.

But what happens in the 1970s is, first of all, with the passing of Roe v. Wade, you see a spike in the number of abortions. And that causes many Americans, not just evangelicals, to kind of rethink is this what we wanted? But I think more importantly, you have the rise of second-wave feminism and, in conservative, white, evangelical spaces, a real backlash against feminism. And over the course of that decade, abortion becomes linked to feminism. And so you see the sentiment start to shift so that in 1979, when political activist Paul Weyrich identifies abortion as a potential to really mobilize conservative evangelicals politically, to help build the Moral Majority, then it is a very effective mechanism for doing so. And from 1979 on, that's when you see a real kind of shrinking of space within conservative evangelicalism to have any view on abortion that isn't strictly and staunchly pro-life, life begins at conception.

 

8 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

If it wasn't abortion it would've been some other contrived shit. 

 

Perhaps, but in the timeline we live in it was abortion. Roe provided the opportunity for an effective wedge, a vehicle that could coalesce the political influence of evangelicals (southern, democrats, and otherwise) in a way that the other issues could not. If you want to tell me that there were a hodge podge of other influencing factors trending evangelicals to the GOP...racism, desegregation, reactions to feminism, etc. OK.  But the political vehicle that that group coalesced behind in a politically effective way was abortion, and that vehicle only existed in the way it did as a result of Roe.  Reagan goes from signing the most liberal abortion law at the time as governor, to campaign lip service about amending the constitution outlawing abortion. That is political mileage that they aren't gonna get from desegregation or any of the other social issues at the time other than abortion. 

A WaPo piece from April 1980: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/04/12/reagan-is-favored-by-anti-abortionists/f89c94bf-4e00-4674-b91c-c1f10a6aea15/

Spoiler

Reagan Is Favored by Anti-Abortionists

By T. R. Reid

April 12, 1980

After waging war for months against candidates they oppose, antibortionists are mounting a coordinated effort in support of Ronald Reagan, the most outspoken abortion foe of the remaining presidential hopefuls.

As the probability has grown that Reagan will win the Republican presidential nomination, the anti-abortion movement has spread the word that Democrats should vote for him against either President Carter or Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in November.

Should it catch on, such a drive could play a key role in the election. Opinion polls suggest that most antiabortion activists are Democrats, and that many of them consider the abortion question more important than party labels.

Voter surveys after the April 1 Wisconsin primary -- which resembled a general election in that voters could choose a candidate from either party -- showed that Reagan won votes from Democrats and independents because of his anti-abortion stand.

In the 1976 election, the first presidential race since opposition to abortion emerged as an important political force, anti-abortion activists had no strong perference because both Carter and President Ford opposed a constitutional amendment to ban abortions. Support of such an amendment is the political test for anti-abortionists.

Carter remains opposed to a constitutional amendment. Reagan strongly supports the idea and has even backed proposals to force a constitutional convention if Congress refuses to propose such an amendment. In his campaign speeches, Reagan has promised to use the power and prestige of the presidency to push for an amendment if he is elected.

His position has won Reagan the support of most anti-abortion groups nation-wide, giving him a built-in corpsof highly motivated activists in every state.

There is really no single anti-abortion "movement;" the political force is a not-always-harmonious consortium of groups bearing such names as "Citizens Concerned for Life" (Minnesota), "The Pro-Life Party Inc." (New York and other states), "Americans forCatholic Values" (New Hampshire), and "Iowa for Life."

The organizations have their differences over substance -- including the question of whether abortion should be permitted to save a woman's life -- and tactics -- including a continuing dispute between people who maintain allegiance to the major parties and those who prefer an independent political effort.

But interviews with about 300 antiabortion workers in 27 states over the past six months show a consensus on basic points.

The people who turn out to demonstrate against abortion in a downpour at dawn or wait in the cold for hours to shout their cause at candidates and reporters all believe that they represent a growing political force, and that the 1980 presidential campaign is their chance to prove it.

In the first months of the campaign they tried to do this mainly by demonstrating against candidates they opposed.Kennedy was the chief target, even though there is no difference between him and Carter on the question of an anti-abortion amendment.

Kennedy earned the ire, and in some cases, the evident hatred of antiabortionists partly because of his long record of Senate votes in favor of Medicaid funding for abortions. And he was the target partly because, as Madeline Appleby, who picketed outsidea Kennedy rally in Littleton, N.H. -- put it: "He's a Catholic and he ought to know better."

"As for the Dems," noted the antiabortion newsletter "Lifeletter" in a recent survey of the presidential race, "well, it's obvious that anti-abortionists want bogeyman Ted not just down but out before they start blasting President Carter's lousy abortion record."

But other candidates, too, drew demonstrations. Carter's surrogate campaigners have been targets, as has George Bush. John B. Anderson, the only candidate who argues agressively inhis speeches for a woman's "right" to choose abortion, has begun to run into demonstrations at most campaign stops.

In recent weeks, however, opponents of abortion seem to have shifted gears. The tone of their political effort has switched from predominantly "anti" various candidates to a heavily pro-Reagan campaign.

Among those working to steer anti-abortionists around the nation onto the pro-Reagan course are such recognized leaders as Nellie Gray, who leads the "March For Life" in Washington each spring, Paul Brown, chairman of the Washington-based Life Amendment Political Action Committee, and James McFadden, who heads the New York-based Ad Hoc Committee in Defense of Life and edits Lifeletter, which seemsto be the most widely read anti-abortion publication.

Some anti-abortionists, however, who have not yet agreed that support for Reagan in November is an acceptable course. A leader of this faction is Ellen McCormack, who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1976 on a "pro-life" platform and is running again this year as an independent. 1

McCormacks Pro-Life Party took out blistering newspaper ads during the New Hampshire and Illinois primaries noting that Reagan, as governor of California, had signed at 1967 state law that considerably liberalized the right to obtain an abortion in that state.

Until 1967, California law forbade abortions except when a woman's life was threatened. The law Reagan signedalso permitted abortions when a woman's physical or mental health was jeopardized, and in cases of rape or incest. The statute was rendered moot by a Supreme Court ruling in 1973 that voided most state laws against abortion.

Reagan now says, as he did in 1967, that he had serious doubts about the statute but signed it because he felt some change was necessary in California's previous law.

The McCormack faction also disapproves of Reagan's promise to support Republican congressional cndidates who will not take the total anti-abortion pledge.

But this "purist" view of Reagan seems to be declining among abortion opponents as McCormack has discovered in her independent campaign for the presidency.

"People who were for us in 1976 now say, 'Well, Reagan isn't perfect, but he's electable,'" complains Linda Zumpano, manager of the McCormack-for-President campaign.

"We get a lot of feeling," Zumpano adds, "that Ellen (McCormack) is somehow muddying the waters, you know, that everyone who is supposedly right-to-life should get united behind Reagan so our side can have a winner."

 

[Brisketexan 105,139]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

 I think that the rest of the paragraph is relevant to the discussion.

But what happens in the 1970s is, first of all, with the passing of Roe v. Wade, you see a spike in the number of abortions. And that causes many Americans, not just evangelicals, to kind of rethink is this what we wanted? But I think more importantly, you have the rise of second-wave feminism and, in conservative, white, evangelical spaces, a real backlash against feminism. And over the course of that decade, abortion becomes linked to feminism. And so you see the sentiment start to shift so that in 1979, when political activist Paul Weyrich identifies abortion as a potential to really mobilize conservative evangelicals politically, to help build the Moral Majority, then it is a very effective mechanism for doing so. And from 1979 on, that's when you see a real kind of shrinking of space within conservative evangelicalism to have any view on abortion that isn't strictly and staunchly pro-life, life begins at conception.

 

 

Perhaps, but in the timeline we live in it was abortion. Roe provided the opportunity for an effective wedge, a vehicle that could coalesce the political influence of evangelicals (southern, democrats, and otherwise) in a way that the other issues could not. If you want to tell me that there were a hodge podge of other influencing factors trending evangelicals to the GOP...racism, desegregation, reactions to feminism, etc. OK.  But the political vehicle that that group coalesced behind in a politically effective way was abortion, and that vehicle only existed in the way it did as a result of Roe.  Reagan goes from signing the most liberal abortion law at the time as governor, to campaign lip service about amending the constitution outlawing abortion. That is political mileage that they aren't gonna get from desegregation or any of the other social issues at the time other than abortion. 

A WaPo piece from April 1980: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/04/12/reagan-is-favored-by-anti-abortionists/f89c94bf-4e00-4674-b91c-c1f10a6aea15/

  Reveal hidden contents

Reagan Is Favored by Anti-Abortionists

By T. R. Reid

April 12, 1980

After waging war for months against candidates they oppose, antibortionists are mounting a coordinated effort in support of Ronald Reagan, the most outspoken abortion foe of the remaining presidential hopefuls.

As the probability has grown that Reagan will win the Republican presidential nomination, the anti-abortion movement has spread the word that Democrats should vote for him against either President Carter or Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in November.

Should it catch on, such a drive could play a key role in the election. Opinion polls suggest that most antiabortion activists are Democrats, and that many of them consider the abortion question more important than party labels.

Voter surveys after the April 1 Wisconsin primary -- which resembled a general election in that voters could choose a candidate from either party -- showed that Reagan won votes from Democrats and independents because of his anti-abortion stand.

In the 1976 election, the first presidential race since opposition to abortion emerged as an important political force, anti-abortion activists had no strong perference because both Carter and President Ford opposed a constitutional amendment to ban abortions. Support of such an amendment is the political test for anti-abortionists.

Carter remains opposed to a constitutional amendment. Reagan strongly supports the idea and has even backed proposals to force a constitutional convention if Congress refuses to propose such an amendment. In his campaign speeches, Reagan has promised to use the power and prestige of the presidency to push for an amendment if he is elected.

His position has won Reagan the support of most anti-abortion groups nation-wide, giving him a built-in corpsof highly motivated activists in every state.

There is really no single anti-abortion "movement;" the political force is a not-always-harmonious consortium of groups bearing such names as "Citizens Concerned for Life" (Minnesota), "The Pro-Life Party Inc." (New York and other states), "Americans forCatholic Values" (New Hampshire), and "Iowa for Life."

The organizations have their differences over substance -- including the question of whether abortion should be permitted to save a woman's life -- and tactics -- including a continuing dispute between people who maintain allegiance to the major parties and those who prefer an independent political effort.

But interviews with about 300 antiabortion workers in 27 states over the past six months show a consensus on basic points.

The people who turn out to demonstrate against abortion in a downpour at dawn or wait in the cold for hours to shout their cause at candidates and reporters all believe that they represent a growing political force, and that the 1980 presidential campaign is their chance to prove it.

In the first months of the campaign they tried to do this mainly by demonstrating against candidates they opposed.Kennedy was the chief target, even though there is no difference between him and Carter on the question of an anti-abortion amendment.

Kennedy earned the ire, and in some cases, the evident hatred of antiabortionists partly because of his long record of Senate votes in favor of Medicaid funding for abortions. And he was the target partly because, as Madeline Appleby, who picketed outsidea Kennedy rally in Littleton, N.H. -- put it: "He's a Catholic and he ought to know better."

"As for the Dems," noted the antiabortion newsletter "Lifeletter" in a recent survey of the presidential race, "well, it's obvious that anti-abortionists want bogeyman Ted not just down but out before they start blasting President Carter's lousy abortion record."

But other candidates, too, drew demonstrations. Carter's surrogate campaigners have been targets, as has George Bush. John B. Anderson, the only candidate who argues agressively inhis speeches for a woman's "right" to choose abortion, has begun to run into demonstrations at most campaign stops.

In recent weeks, however, opponents of abortion seem to have shifted gears. The tone of their political effort has switched from predominantly "anti" various candidates to a heavily pro-Reagan campaign.

Among those working to steer anti-abortionists around the nation onto the pro-Reagan course are such recognized leaders as Nellie Gray, who leads the "March For Life" in Washington each spring, Paul Brown, chairman of the Washington-based Life Amendment Political Action Committee, and James McFadden, who heads the New York-based Ad Hoc Committee in Defense of Life and edits Lifeletter, which seemsto be the most widely read anti-abortion publication.

Some anti-abortionists, however, who have not yet agreed that support for Reagan in November is an acceptable course. A leader of this faction is Ellen McCormack, who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1976 on a "pro-life" platform and is running again this year as an independent. 1

McCormacks Pro-Life Party took out blistering newspaper ads during the New Hampshire and Illinois primaries noting that Reagan, as governor of California, had signed at 1967 state law that considerably liberalized the right to obtain an abortion in that state.

Until 1967, California law forbade abortions except when a woman's life was threatened. The law Reagan signedalso permitted abortions when a woman's physical or mental health was jeopardized, and in cases of rape or incest. The statute was rendered moot by a Supreme Court ruling in 1973 that voided most state laws against abortion.

Reagan now says, as he did in 1967, that he had serious doubts about the statute but signed it because he felt some change was necessary in California's previous law.

The McCormack faction also disapproves of Reagan's promise to support Republican congressional cndidates who will not take the total anti-abortion pledge.

But this "purist" view of Reagan seems to be declining among abortion opponents as McCormack has discovered in her independent campaign for the presidency.

"People who were for us in 1976 now say, 'Well, Reagan isn't perfect, but he's electable,'" complains Linda Zumpano, manager of the McCormack-for-President campaign.

"We get a lot of feeling," Zumpano adds, "that Ellen (McCormack) is somehow muddying the waters, you know, that everyone who is supposedly right-to-life should get united behind Reagan so our side can have a winner."

 

If you think they wouldn't have found something else, you're lying to yourself even harder than you're lying to us.

For fuck's sake, they are TODAY using as a "wedge issue" things like......teaching high school students that slavery was a thing, and it was bad. They are using a wedge issue....vaccines.....ALL VACCINES.

Roe was the club they picked up to beat the fascism into people.   History, including real-time history, tells us that any number of clubs would have done just fine, there's nothing particularly special about Roe.  Roe isn't a reason.  It's an excuse to be the shitheels that they always were.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Brisketexan

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,101]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

 I think that the rest of the paragraph is relevant to the discussion.

But what happens in the 1970s is, first of all, with the passing of Roe v. Wade, you see a spike in the number of abortions. And that causes many Americans, not just evangelicals, to kind of rethink is this what we wanted? But I think more importantly, you have the rise of second-wave feminism and, in conservative, white, evangelical spaces, a real backlash against feminism. And over the course of that decade, abortion becomes linked to feminism. And so you see the sentiment start to shift so that in 1979, when political activist Paul Weyrich identifies abortion as a potential to really mobilize conservative evangelicals politically, to help build the Moral Majority, then it is a very effective mechanism for doing so. And from 1979 on, that's when you see a real kind of shrinking of space within conservative evangelicalism to have any view on abortion that isn't strictly and staunchly pro-life, life begins at conception.

 

 

Perhaps, but in the timeline we live in it was abortion. Roe provided the opportunity for an effective wedge, a vehicle that could coalesce the political influence of evangelicals (southern, democrats, and otherwise) in a way that the other issues could not. If you want to tell me that there were a hodge podge of other influencing factors trending evangelicals to the GOP...racism, desegregation, reactions to feminism, etc. OK.  But the political vehicle that that group coalesced behind in a politically effective way was abortion, and that vehicle only existed in the way it did as a result of Roe.  Reagan goes from signing the most liberal abortion law at the time as governor, to campaign lip service about amending the constitution outlawing abortion. That is political mileage that they aren't gonna get from desegregation or any of the other social issues at the time other than abortion. 

A WaPo piece from April 1980: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/04/12/reagan-is-favored-by-anti-abortionists/f89c94bf-4e00-4674-b91c-c1f10a6aea15/

  Reveal hidden contents

Reagan Is Favored by Anti-Abortionists

By T. R. Reid

April 12, 1980

After waging war for months against candidates they oppose, antibortionists are mounting a coordinated effort in support of Ronald Reagan, the most outspoken abortion foe of the remaining presidential hopefuls.

As the probability has grown that Reagan will win the Republican presidential nomination, the anti-abortion movement has spread the word that Democrats should vote for him against either President Carter or Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in November.

Should it catch on, such a drive could play a key role in the election. Opinion polls suggest that most antiabortion activists are Democrats, and that many of them consider the abortion question more important than party labels.

Voter surveys after the April 1 Wisconsin primary -- which resembled a general election in that voters could choose a candidate from either party -- showed that Reagan won votes from Democrats and independents because of his anti-abortion stand.

In the 1976 election, the first presidential race since opposition to abortion emerged as an important political force, anti-abortion activists had no strong perference because both Carter and President Ford opposed a constitutional amendment to ban abortions. Support of such an amendment is the political test for anti-abortionists.

Carter remains opposed to a constitutional amendment. Reagan strongly supports the idea and has even backed proposals to force a constitutional convention if Congress refuses to propose such an amendment. In his campaign speeches, Reagan has promised to use the power and prestige of the presidency to push for an amendment if he is elected.

His position has won Reagan the support of most anti-abortion groups nation-wide, giving him a built-in corpsof highly motivated activists in every state.

There is really no single anti-abortion "movement;" the political force is a not-always-harmonious consortium of groups bearing such names as "Citizens Concerned for Life" (Minnesota), "The Pro-Life Party Inc." (New York and other states), "Americans forCatholic Values" (New Hampshire), and "Iowa for Life."

The organizations have their differences over substance -- including the question of whether abortion should be permitted to save a woman's life -- and tactics -- including a continuing dispute between people who maintain allegiance to the major parties and those who prefer an independent political effort.

But interviews with about 300 antiabortion workers in 27 states over the past six months show a consensus on basic points.

The people who turn out to demonstrate against abortion in a downpour at dawn or wait in the cold for hours to shout their cause at candidates and reporters all believe that they represent a growing political force, and that the 1980 presidential campaign is their chance to prove it.

In the first months of the campaign they tried to do this mainly by demonstrating against candidates they opposed.Kennedy was the chief target, even though there is no difference between him and Carter on the question of an anti-abortion amendment.

Kennedy earned the ire, and in some cases, the evident hatred of antiabortionists partly because of his long record of Senate votes in favor of Medicaid funding for abortions. And he was the target partly because, as Madeline Appleby, who picketed outsidea Kennedy rally in Littleton, N.H. -- put it: "He's a Catholic and he ought to know better."

"As for the Dems," noted the antiabortion newsletter "Lifeletter" in a recent survey of the presidential race, "well, it's obvious that anti-abortionists want bogeyman Ted not just down but out before they start blasting President Carter's lousy abortion record."

But other candidates, too, drew demonstrations. Carter's surrogate campaigners have been targets, as has George Bush. John B. Anderson, the only candidate who argues agressively inhis speeches for a woman's "right" to choose abortion, has begun to run into demonstrations at most campaign stops.

In recent weeks, however, opponents of abortion seem to have shifted gears. The tone of their political effort has switched from predominantly "anti" various candidates to a heavily pro-Reagan campaign.

Among those working to steer anti-abortionists around the nation onto the pro-Reagan course are such recognized leaders as Nellie Gray, who leads the "March For Life" in Washington each spring, Paul Brown, chairman of the Washington-based Life Amendment Political Action Committee, and James McFadden, who heads the New York-based Ad Hoc Committee in Defense of Life and edits Lifeletter, which seemsto be the most widely read anti-abortion publication.

Some anti-abortionists, however, who have not yet agreed that support for Reagan in November is an acceptable course. A leader of this faction is Ellen McCormack, who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1976 on a "pro-life" platform and is running again this year as an independent. 1

McCormacks Pro-Life Party took out blistering newspaper ads during the New Hampshire and Illinois primaries noting that Reagan, as governor of California, had signed at 1967 state law that considerably liberalized the right to obtain an abortion in that state.

Until 1967, California law forbade abortions except when a woman's life was threatened. The law Reagan signedalso permitted abortions when a woman's physical or mental health was jeopardized, and in cases of rape or incest. The statute was rendered moot by a Supreme Court ruling in 1973 that voided most state laws against abortion.

Reagan now says, as he did in 1967, that he had serious doubts about the statute but signed it because he felt some change was necessary in California's previous law.

The McCormack faction also disapproves of Reagan's promise to support Republican congressional cndidates who will not take the total anti-abortion pledge.

But this "purist" view of Reagan seems to be declining among abortion opponents as McCormack has discovered in her independent campaign for the presidency.

"People who were for us in 1976 now say, 'Well, Reagan isn't perfect, but he's electable,'" complains Linda Zumpano, manager of the McCormack-for-President campaign.

"We get a lot of feeling," Zumpano adds, "that Ellen (McCormack) is somehow muddying the waters, you know, that everyone who is supposedly right-to-life should get united behind Reagan so our side can have a winner."

 

Just stop already.  You are such a fucking beating.

[Anastasis 23,469]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If you think they wouldn't have found something else, you're lying to yourself even harder than you're lying to us.

For fuck's sake, they are TODAY using as a "wedge issue" things like......teaching high school students that slavery was a thing, and it was bad. They are using a wedge issue....vaccines.....ALL VACCINES.

Roe was the club they picked up to beat the fascism into people.   History, including real-time history, tells us that any number of clubs would have done just fine, there's nothing particularly special about Roe.  Roe isn't a reason.  It's an excuse to be the shitheels that they always were.

Well in the universe of possibilities, this is the one that actually played out. And strictly in terms of political strategy, one that played out pretty well for the GOP until the dog actually caught the car. Remove the Roe decision from the timeline, remove the abortion issue as a political tool at the national level, and I think that the timeline plays out quite differently, and further that the modern GOP looks meaningfully different.  

6 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Just stop already.  You are such a fucking beating.

Please use the ignore function. 

[Brisketexan 105,139]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Well in the universe of possibilities, this is the one that actually played out. And strictly in terms of political strategy, one that played out pretty well for the GOP until the dog actually caught the car. Remove the Roe decision from the timeline, remove the abortion issue as a political tool at the national level, and I think that the timeline plays out quite differently, and further that the modern GOP looks meaningfully different.  

By all means, keep on ignoring the universal law of

because it clearly makes you feel better and superior.

The sad part is, you know that universal law is true.  The GQP is fulfilling its destiny. This was ALWAYS its destiny.  Once it lost the Civil Rights battle, it was going to find a road back to white supremacist fascism.  That was always true.  It has never NOT been true.  Maybe it would have taken more time.   Or less.  But it was always going to happen, because THEY ARE WHO THEY ARE, AND THEY ARE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE.

You know that's the truth.  You just want to blame the rest of society for victimizing itself.  I mean, if we hadn't sat at that "whites only" lunch counter, we wouldn't have pissed them off so much.  That's on us.  Shame on us.

[Captainant 27,668]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Remove the Roe decision from the timeline, remove the abortion issue as a political tool at the national level, and I think that the timeline plays out quite differently, and further that the modern GOP looks meaningfully different.  

Yeah if we had fewer sanctimonious religious extremists insisting on interjecting their sky daddy into doctor/patient medical decisions, it would no longer be a political issue. You should get to work on that, champ. 

[wildcat09 29,354]

Ana is really pretending that Roe was such a disruptive event that it took evangelicals [checks notes] about seven years to galvanize around it. 

[Anastasis 23,469]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

By all means, keep on ignoring the universal law of

because it clearly makes you feel better and superior.

The sad part is, you know that universal law is true.  The GQP is fulfilling its destiny. This was ALWAYS its destiny.  Once it lost the Civil Rights battle, it was going to find a road back to white supremacist fascism.  That was always true.  It has never NOT been true.  Maybe it would have taken more time.   Or less.  But it was always going to happen, because THEY ARE WHO THEY ARE, AND THEY ARE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE.

You know that's the truth.  You just want to blame the rest of society for victimizing itself.  I mean, if we hadn't sat at that "whites only" lunch counter, we wouldn't have pissed them off so much.  That's on us.  Shame on us.

LOL.  Well, in that case you must feel really bad about all those Republicans you donated to and voted for. They are who we thought they were! 

[Fudge Nuggets 19,190]

13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

LOL.  Well, in that case you must feel really bad about all those Republicans you donated to and voted for. They are who we thought they were! 

He’s said many times that he fucked up in that regard. Yourself?

[Brisketexan 105,139]

13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

LOL.  Well, in that case you must feel really bad about all those Republicans you donated to and voted for. They are who we thought they were! 

I feel wretched and ashamed.  I was naive, and bought a line of bullshit.  Plenty of voices told me who they were (they are who we thought they were).  I told those people they were wrong.  I was quite wrong about that.

Unlike a troubling majority of my countrymen, I can admit that I was wrong.  Incredibly wrong.  Devastatingly wrong.  A wrong that I must work to try to make right as hard as I can.

You oughta try it sometime, it's refreshing and liberating as hell.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

God relieve me from shitty men moralizing about abortion.

Fuuuuuckkkkk oooooofffffff

[Pig Bellmont 8,718]

Ron DeSantis bullshit “stop woke” act is rightfully struck down, and he’s sued for suspending a democratically elected prosecutor over his political beliefs. Yet here we are discussing abortion? 

[Anastasis 23,469]

12 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

He’s said many times that he fucked up in that regard. Yourself?

1. I am not the one here proclaiming "they are who we thought they were!", pointing to things from the 60s as clear and obvious evidence, despite supporting a wide range of GOP candidates with my money and my votes.   

2. I have made exactly three political donations in my life. Two Democrats and 1 Republican. In the last 8 years, two Democrats, one of which was Beto. I have pulled the lever for a Republican at any level exactly once (GWB) and it became clear pretty quickly that that was an error of youth.  

Edited August 19, 2022 by Anastasis

[Fudge Nuggets 19,190]

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

1. I am not the one here proclaiming "they are who we thought they were!", pointing to things from the 60s as clear and obvious evidence, despite supporting a wide range of GOP candidates with my money and my votes.   

2. I have made exactly three political donations in my life. Two Democrats and 1 Republican. In the last 8 years, two Democrats, one of which was Beto. I have pulled the lever for a Republican at any level exactly once (GWB) and it became clear pretty quickly that that was an error of youth.  

So why did you think you were making such a “gotcha” post when you asked brisket?

[Anastasis 23,469]

35 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

So why did you think you were making such a “gotcha” post when you asked brisket?

Brisket's belligerence is not a coincidence. It's part of how he psychologically processes his own political failings.  

[troph 24,798]

I apparently started this line of nonsense and I honestly don't know what the fuck y'all are arguing about. evangelicals love fetus, hate gays, hate us trans people, think we progressives are communists, think we hate guns, think we are groomers and recruiters to the gay and trans lifestyle, think we are all pedophiles, and if we get our way where the country lives its ideal of all of mankind (EVERYONE LAST ONE OF US) is created equal with the inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness then Jesus has to be coming back soon because we destroyed their way of life. none of that is disputable based on how they act.