Wow, bold move and it proved as underwhelming as one would imagine. One report was that only 7 students of the college (2,100 enrolled students) actually attended. I wonder who made up the rest of the crowd? Random Trump fans from the surrounding areas probably.
If you just make the correct assumption that the GOP are fascists, then it all makes perfect sense. Not one of them cares about law as a device for justice, just as a tool for harming others. They’re intentionally been packing courts with judges who, similarly, don’t give two shits about actual law, and want to protect party members and allies. When you have enough corruption where a judge will look at you and determine guilt based on skin color or party affiliation, you can do anything you want without fear of immediate repercussion because you’ve essentially neutered the entire system.
I had heard about this. The on-campus students were confined to their dorm rooms during the rally. Mostly because the Secret Service determined it would create a safety issue or similar nonsense.
I only found out about this today due to the resignation of Richard Spencer (no, not that one) but I think it is a microcosm of the U.S. under Trump. People in the U.S. are probably already familiar with this, but just to see if I got everything correct I’ll recount my understanding of things:
A Navy SEAL named Eddie Gallagher was reported to his superiors by his SEAL teammates after he murdered a prisoner of war in cold blood, stabbing him multiple times. He then took photographs with the body. He gets court martialed. At the trial the team’s medic had gotten immunity, took the witness stand and then confessed to the murder, contradicting both that medic’s earlier testimony and the testimony of other witnesses. The case is basically dead due to the medic’s immunity. Gallagher gets still convicted for posing with the dead body, but is released on time served. Still gets demoted.
Trump intervenes, undoes Gallagher’s demotion and meddles in the Navy’s affairs regarding the trial in several ways.
The Navy starts a review of Gallagher’s conduct. This is not good news for any Navy SEAL as it is basically certain death for their career, a precursor to them being kicked out of the Navy. Trump tries to get the review halted, making that public in a tweet. When asked about this Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer responds that a tweet is not an order.
Defense Secretary Mark Esper demands Spencer’s resignation. The official reason given is that Spencer supposedly went behind Esper’s back and appease Trump by undercutting the review of Gallagher by letting Gallagher retire while keeping his rank before the review starts. The only source for this claim is the White House, and it is not exactly believable because 1) that course of action is what Esper is now trying to enact; and 2) Spencer’s letter of resignation is extremely sternly worded, including this passage:
Unfortunately it has become apparent that in the respect, I no longer share the same understanding with the Commander in Chief who appointed me, in regards to the key principle of good order and discipline. I cannot in good conscience obey an order that I believe violates the sacred oath I took in the presence of my family, my flag and my faith to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
So yeah, the Trump administration, where the entire chain of command is undermined to protect a fucking war criminal.
Don’t forget that this is all underpinned by the desire to appeal to the racist Republican base who think the SEAL didn’t do anything wrong because he killed a brown Muslim terrorist.
Now Trump has ordered the prosecutors in the case to be stripped of their medals.
This is useful if like me you’re not about to actually do the due diligence required to find out what’s happening (that is to say, read the same story from multiple sources so as to get a complete picture) But you also don’t just want headlines:
Basically a paragraph summary of every major piece of news relating to impeachment, with sources there if ya wanna read further. Updated daily.
So I disagree with this as well. They clearly want to destroy some of the government. Maybe a large part of the government that any regular person would call government. To rattle off a few examples:
Any form of welfare including food stamps, public housing like section 8, social security, disability and so on.
That’s all I can think of for outright abolishment but for replacing with private alternatives, basically everything the government does. Private road construction, private schools, private infrastructure construction, (like bridges and such) private parks, private emergency services, private refuse collection, private water and sewer maintenence.
The list goes on. They’d also likely be in favor of either abolishing or greatly reducing the power of regulatory bodies. Nobody likes being told what to do and they see basically all regulation as being told what to do. The fact that this leads to kids working in the mills seems to be lost on them.
Point is, they don’t wanna get rid of government, but they wanna get rid of parts of government.
I personally think the task of teasing out what parts they wanna get rid of, what parts they wanna change and what parts they wanna keep is interesting and worth doing. It’d also show that it’s not a fully consistent or even coherent ideology. There’s a lot of differing opinions within the right.
Some surely wanna bring back the monarchy and some surely genuinely actually wanna abolish the entire government (police, military, judiciary and federal reserve included) and replace it with private entities (surely with them at the top).
I don’t think Republicans want to destroy all forms of welfare, I just think they want to destroy the forms of welfare that they don’t get.
Most Republicans live in states where they don’t even realize that they’re on welfare, by that I mean that they receive more in Federal Aid then they pay in Federal Taxes.
I completely agree.
EDIT: my original comment was meant to bolster your point, not dispute it.
This merits it’s own analysis I think. Some surely do actually wanna destroy all forms of welfare. Some probably only wanna destroy welfare that they don’t get. Others still wanna keep the welfare they get but prevent brown people from getting it too.
I think I may just be a walking talking “x is not a monolith” dispenser at this point.
I sorta agree and disagree all around. Republicans are keen on destroying the 14th amendment and what it stands for - that is, they actively seek to undermine the concept of equal protection under the law.
This is consistent in all examples mentioned so far. They want zoning laws to prevent you from doing what you want with your property, but they don’t want those laws to apply to their own property. They want unequal treatment, with their own interests being first and the interests of others being second.
This, more than abolishing the Fed, I think, completely undermines the concept of government at any level. Laws are the ultimate expression of the social contract. The point of laws is that they’re supposed to apply to everyone, and government exists to manage the application of law.
If you abandon the fundamental idea of holding people accountable to their actions by applying the law to them, then you have abandoned the social contract in its entirety.
Hence why I say that they want to break down governance. They don’t want a government that actually governs - they want a weapon that they can selectively wield against the people they don’t like.
You need to distinguish who you’re talking about when you use the word “Republicans”
There’s the voting mass of republicans who vote against their interests because they’re sold on the nationalism, small government, and the individualistic freedom to fail.
Then there’s the capital R Republicans who are soulless ghouls that only care about their own skin and have no qualms with whatever corpses they need to make to save it. Their ideology is clear, but they couch it in doublespeak to sell it to their voters.
“Republicans” are a monolith, every individual one will give you a different sell of what their goals really are because to be a conservative is to internalize ideology as nothing more than a means towards selfishness. A chud who whines about free speech will gladly pull a 180 once they have enough power to ensure no one can challenge them.
There needs to be a distinction between Republicans and Republican leaders. Republican leaders, almost uniformly, want to get rid of all forms of welfare and public services.
I watched the new Mr Rogers documentary on Netflix and it said he was a lifelong republican. WTF?