Some quotes:
“The Mandate for Leadership” is a 920-page document that details how the next Republican administration will implement radical and sweeping changes to the entirety of government. This blueprint assumes that the next president will be able to rule by fiat under the unitary executive theory (which posits that the president has the power to control the entire federal executive branch). It is also based on the premise that the next president will implement Schedule F, which allows the president to fire any federal employee who has policy-making authority, and replace them with a presidential appointee who is not voted on in the Senate.
So they’re gonna take over the executive branch.
And businesses will support and fund this effort because:
The business wish list calls for eliminating federal agencies, stripping those that remain of regulatory power, and deregulating industries. The president would directly manage and influence Department of Justice and FBI cases, which would allow him to pursue criminal cases against political enemies. Environmental law would be gutted, and states would be prevented from enforcing their own environmental laws.
And what about the social wish list?
The social conservative wish list calls for ending abortion, diversity and inclusion efforts, protections for LGBTQ people, and most importantly, banning any and all LGBTQ content. In fact, “The Mandate for Leadership” makes eradicating LGBTQ people from public life its top priority. Its No. 1 promise is to “restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.” They are explicit in how they plan to do so, as you’ll see in the paragraph below. They plan to proceed by declaring any and all LGBTQ content to be pornographic in nature.
“Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.”
When they talk about pornography, this includes any content discussing or portraying LGBTQ figures from the children’s books I Am Jazz and And Tango Makes Three to the Trevor Project’s suicide hotline. We know this by looking at how “don’t say gay” laws have been implemented in Florida: This is literally their model. It’s been tried in Virginia. It’s also arguable that LGBTQ parents would be subject to arrest, imprisonment, and being put on sex-offender registries for “exposing children to pornography” simply by being LGBTQ and having children.
It would also likely criminalize any therapist, doctor, or counselor who provided affirming therapy to trans youth. Indeed, the document makes it explicitly clear they want nationwide bans on abortion and access to affirming care for trans youth, while calling for conversion therapies to be the only available treatments. It could be argued as well that people who are visibly trans in public are pornographic or obscene, because they might be seen by a minor. This understanding of intent is in line with the call to “eradicate transgenderism from public life.”
There’s also the matter of the internet: Any Internet Service Provider (ISP) that transmits or receives data about transgender people could potentially be liable if conservatives have their way. When you read the final sentence of the excerpted paragraph, the clear intent is that the same would apply to any social media company that allows any (positive) discussion or depiction of transgender individuals, as it would be considered pornographic and contributing to harming a minor.
And how will they do this shit?
The organizations that drafted “The Mandate for Leadership” understand that blue states, which have sanctuary laws for transgender people, are unlikely to comply. It’s difficult to imagine California arresting and prosecuting teachers, librarians, doctors, therapists, bookstores (virtual or physical), LGBTQ parents, and especially LGBTQ people merely for existing in public. This is why they included the following paragraph:
“Where warranted and proper under federal law, initiate legal action against local officials—including District Attorneys—who deny American citizens the “equal protection of the laws” by refusing to prosecute criminal offenses in their jurisdictions. This holds true particularly for jurisdictions that refuse to enforce the law against criminals based on the Left’s favored defining characteristics of the would-be offender (race, so-called gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.) or other political considerations (e.g., immigration status).”
This is calling for the executive branch to use the Department of Justice to threaten prosecution of any local or state officials if they do not charge LGBTQ people and their allies with crimes under the pretense that they are breaking federal and state laws against exposing minors to pornography. If people at the Department of Justice refuse to go along with this, then they can simply be replaced under Schedule F. While the excerpted paragraph above includes references to immigration, the fact that it explicitly includes gender identity, and fits in with the previous calls to designate anything trans-related as pornographic, clearly telegraphs their intent.
The result of these actions will be perhaps the biggest power play against states rights in American history, and the threat is clear. If blue states refuse to turn on their own transgender citizens, then the federal government will do everything in its power to decapitate the leadership of those states using the Department of Justice. Conservatives are making the bet that individual district attorneys will not risk prosecution, and prison, on behalf of a tiny, despised minority. They’re betting that state governors will not be willing to risk both prosecution and a constitutional crisis over transgender people.
Well, fuck!
In addition to voting, what should we do about this?
There is no such thing as “a good conservative”. No. Such. Thing. They are posturing for genocide. Pacifism cannot stop them, as it has never stopped a plague of conservatism in the past.
Do your part. Train and prepare, physically and mentally. Teach your children why we don’t do business or hold relationships with conservatives. Speak openly about the deadly threat of conservatism.
Exclude all members of the hate group to exclude the hate.
Funny how US conservatives sound like muslim fundamentalists.
Fundamentalism is merely a way to disclaim responsibility for the obviously terrible things that conservatives want to do.
See also: “originalism”
That is what we need! To ensure our kids do not talk to anyone with opposing viewpoints, so they are never challenged in their current way of thinking. Maybe teach them how to have an open and civilized difference of opinion? And maybe learn that yourself? USA is in this shit because of radicalisation from both sides, a demonisation of one group vs the other.
Really, there are still “both sides” enlightened centrists? How do you even put your clothes on in the morning with your level of brain damage?
Exactly.
Centrist: Oh! I sure can see the point of the Republican side that wants to: genocide trans kids, vote against school lunches for kids, protect child marriage, make women slaves and who knows who else, and do literally nothing to fix the economy.
Liberal democracy has successfully convinced people that all political opinions are somehow equally valuable and worth protecting, as if political opinions were similar to favorite color, food preferences or support of a sports team.
In reality, political opinions and their consequences decide over who is starving and who is not, whether there is war or not, whether humanity will survive or not.
There is no such thing as someone I respect who I politically disagree with. Politics is a matter of life and death. I do not agree to disagree with someone who tortures LGBTQ kids. I want them dead. There is no civilized difference of opinion with advocates of genocide. They are to be removed.
Yeah pretty much. The only exception I make is for people who are ignorant or haven’t thought things through. Some can be persuaded when you explain the issue to them, as long as you carefully step around any mental firewalls they’ve developed. But when reactionary politics are an outgrowth of someone’s shitty character there’s not much you can do.
Talking to someone with opposing views doesn’t mean all views are valid. Basing your entire comment off of a bad faith straw man.
Wheeling out the Both Sides argument here of all places, huh? Tone-deaf much?
That’s dumb as fuck. Imagine having a regular conversation at work with someone, they just casually mention something conservative, and then you act like a socially incompetent weirdo and fell them they’re posturing for genocide. You’re not going to look like the sane one here, and this would have the conservative looking normal.
If you want to say there’s no good conservatives, you need to be consistent. This is when you need to realize you’re far too deep into the echo chamber and lost all contact with normal every day people. When you start imaging this behavior in normal every day scenarios with regular people that have little understanding of politics, you’ll realize how unhinged the behavior you’re proposing is.
What do you mean by “casually mention something conservative?” Maybe they’d say something like, “you and my son should start a pro life group at your school” assuming I’m also conservative and pro life. This actually happened to me growing up, and needless to say, I stopped spending time with that kid. He always treated me well as did his mother, but I couldn’t get close to someone that was in favor of banning abortion.
I didn’t let them know in the moment where I stood. You don’t need to immediately turn into a weirdo or call them out, you just need to stop associating with them. The funny thing is that was during my more enlightened centrist phase, and even then I knew that shit was unacceptable. Women deserve to choose, and no true friend would want to take away someone’s rights like that. That’s what the previous poster probably meant. That behavior isn’t unhinged, it’s called having a moral compass. Damn straight we should apply our politics to everyday life; life is political baby.
What an incredibly privileged and sheltered life. Tell me how I know you’re the uptight guy people avoid. You completely misunderstand the whole point that like 90% of the people don’t understand politics and just repeat what’s in the environment around them, they’re regular ass people you have zero empathy for. You’re falling on deaf ears immediately treating these people as inferior.
It isn’t my job to change everyone’s minds and get them to rethink the shitty things they’ve been taught. However it also isn’t my job to just accept bigotry and hatred, especially for someone as vulnerable to it as I am. I get that if you’re a neurotypical cis het white man you can just ignore the consequences of conservatism, but people like me can’t.
I’ve spent my fair share of time with bigots and edgelords, and you know what? They may put up with you for a time, but eventually their prejudices turn them against you. They’ll make jokes at your expense, and those I can handle, but when things get serious, when there’s an actual disagreement or conflict, they’ll see things like your race or sexual orientation as a weakness that makes you inferior to them. I have plenty of empathy for people who don’t know any better, but when someone could see you as less of a person than them, as a toy they can play with, that’s hurts.
You are intentionally being bad faith at this point. I’m talking about your average everyday reactionary who’s a blue collar worker and is just repeating what they hear around them. I’ve stated that multiple times now. You’re equating that with a hateful gop politician that is following every culture war and republican narrative. They are not remotely the same, and you’re straw manning this so you can play victim instead of having a normal conversation.
An uninformed blue collar Republican might not have the same blame that a GOP politician has, but that doesn’t mean they don’t contribute to that terrible politician being in office and being able to oppress people like me. I genuinely wish I could give everyone in America the knowledge I have so that they can make more informed decisions about who to support, but I haven’t found a way to do that yet. Go figure.
The big issue is that the ignorant Republican voter is a threat to me, even if they don’t have the same culpability for their actions as a well educated Republican. I don’t want to damn that person to hell or send them to prison, but I will do what I need to do to protect myself. A great amount of the harm and bad things that happen in the world are caused by people who don’t know any better, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t prevent them from doing those things with reasonable force. It’s not about punishing people or making people who do bad things get what they deserve. Punitive justice is overrated, but we still need to get some form of justice in reducing harm and preventing bad things if possible.
Pretty sure she’s the one having the normal conversation in this thread. You might find better traction for your hate and gaslighting over on GAB or NAMBLA or where ever conservatives are hanging out these days.
What a toxic reply, and no I’m completely right if you have ever left the house.