• Baggie@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Stupid as this is, at least he worked it out? I’m a little impressed.

          • TurtleJoe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            He asked that the state GOP revoke their endorsement of him. That’s something.

            His previous comments imply some internalized homophobia, but this recent line of rhetoric from the Colorado GOP is obviously eliminationist, and he seems to have realized it. Maybe it leads to him more closely examining his previous attitudes, maybe it doesn’t.

            I’m not saying he’s like, a good dude. Just worth noting that he found a line he wouldn’t cross.

            • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              I don’t think that getting driven out of this party by bigots counts as “moving in the right direction“.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      No he didn’t:

      …and arguing that they don’t represent Republican views.

      He’s still in fucking denial.

      • uis@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’m just thinking. Isn’t republic fancy word for representative democracy? As opposed to direct democracy.

        In representative democracy people vote for people who vote for law, while in direct democracy people vote for law.

        • Hawke@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          No but yes but no.

          I’m not sure you are serious/genuine here but I’m also not sure you deserve the downvotes and I have some time to kill.

          “Republic” is “rule by the people” (Rex public). It means the same as democracy (“people rule”). The only difference is Latin vs Greek.

          As used in the US, your description kinda-sorta covers the principles that the parties once maybe kinda stood for 150 years ago or so. (Something like “more federal power / less federal power”).

          In reality these days they’re just labels for two different groups, and the words have no connection in this context, it’s just an historical note.

          • uis@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            16 hours ago

            I was talking about meaning in entire world, not american local dialect.

    • rdyoung@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      I question his fitness for office if he had no clue, they aren’t shy about these beliefs and they have gotten less shy post trump.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I mean… I question any Republican’s fitness for office. This guy might be even denser than normal, but it’s not as if he’s that far from the GOP average.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Meh sometimes for local government there aren’t a lot of good options. You can’t really primary an incumbent and going independent just makes it that much harder. However, I assume you weren’t talking about city comptroller you were talking a real position like Congress or Governor

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    “Messages of hate, bigotry, and government control over people’s lives are not Republican or Christian,” Republican Douglas County Commissioner Abe Laydon said with a straight face.

    • herrcaptain@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      To give this dude credit, from the rest of the quote in the article it sounds like he’s genuinely standing up against this sort of hate, and I expect it’s at a very tangible personal cost. I find it almost unbelievable that anyone who genuinely opposes hate of a sort that’s become a part of the absolute fabric of modern conservatism could still be a Republican, but apparently this dude is the exception. I hope he has the sense to get out now, but I’ll take what genuine progress I can get given I’ve largely written off most conservatives as a lost cause.

  • aleph@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Archuleta himself, though, has a history of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric. He previously blamed LGBTQ+ individuals for the Club Q shooting and said that queer people are “groomers” – or child sex abusers – a negative stereotype that has been used to justify hatred and discrimination.

    Bruh.

      • Plopp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Not necessarily? The dude is gay, LGBT+ and queer covers a lot more than gay. Maybe he just hates the other ones.

          • Kushan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            There’s weirdly a lot of fractures within the LGBTQ+ community, there’s a joke that the letters are “in order of preference” and quite a lot of the gay community doesn’t recognise trans people, or thinks Bi folks are just gay but won’t admit it and things like that.

            An ex of mine was bi and I got exposed to a lot of this shit because of the amount of shit she got from some of her lesbian friends over dating a man. It really shocked me because it’s completely against your own interests to become the very thing that’s opressed you and your kin, yet here we are - gay republicans.

        • Victor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Not a bad take. Identity is definitely a spectrum of sorts. We all have limits to our acceptance level.

    • kandoh@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Something to think about is that there are men who see a benefit to gayness being something you can be social ostracized for, because it enables them to have gay sex freely with the knowledge that if there partners ever tell anyone about it they’ll suffer repercussions.

      • Cosmicomical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Sounds deranged. If it was NOT socially ostracized they would NOT need to rely on the partner being ostracized.

        • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I know a hard republican pedophile that used their rhetoric around trans people to justify to their victims that people calling him out are just bigots

  • Hucklebee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    So, I live in a European country where our right-wing politics would probably be considered “left” by Republican Americans.

    I vote sort of central. Not too left, not too right. Even though I disagree with many things that our rightwinged politicians stand for, I can see some merit in them at times. The same with our left-leaning politicians.

    When I see discussions among Americans, it seems to me either party just hates the other party, automatically calling them bigoted. And it comes across as a heavily divided country without any hope for reconciliation.

    So 2 questions: Republicans: is there any democratic strength you wish your party would implement?

    And democrats: is there any republican strength that you wish your party would implement?

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      And democrats: is there any republican strength that you wish your party would implement?

      We had 8 years of Obama where he tried to meet them in the middle and that was a flop. I don’t even know what they really stand for as it’s always shifting. The only concrete things seem to be hurting other people. I ones I know in my personal life genuinely believe that things are only bad because the media keeps bring up police violence and inequality.

    • meliaesc@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I just searched for what the US Republicans actually want:

      The positions of the Republican Party have evolved over time. Currently, the party’s fiscal conservatism includes support for lower taxes, gun rights, government conservatism, free market capitalism, free trade, deregulation of corporations, and restrictions on labor unions.

      No, absolutely no redeeming qualities here.

      • die444die@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Yeah that’s a REAL generous list if you look at the laws that they are actually pushing. Keep in mind they are passing laws at the state level mostly and preventing the federal govt from restricting it.

        It’s basically is the confederacy trying to “rise again” as they’ve always threatened.

        If they are not stopped politically it will lead to them being stopped violently just like their shitty forefathers were. The rest of us are trying everything we can to help their supporters understand what they are doing, but their propaganda has been strong for decades.

      • Hucklebee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Although I’m not a conservative myself, I still see a case to be made for a government that is “conservative”. I.e. a government that doesn’t respond with a law for every single small thing. There is a danger to turn a country into a bureaucratic nightmare. Where people will find loopholes in laws, and a government responds by patching that loophole up with another law or clause. A labyrinth of laws can and will cause suffering for people that are edge cases.

        Or do I read the term “government conservatism” wrong here?

    • dariusj18@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I used to believe the Republican party brought much needed conservatism to the table. There were reasonable concerns that the Democratic party was too heavy handed with implementing morality and over reaching laws. The Democratic party has mostly been in the right side of social permissivness since then and the Republican party has gone fucking crazy Reactionary which they have rebranded as “Conservative”. It has become an intersection dynamic where the Democratic party has become a coalition of progressives and conservatives, who just to want to keep the rights they have. Unfortunately there are many “Team R” fans that don’t recognize that their party no longer represents them.

      So short answer, the Democratic party has already absorbed the strengths of the Republican party.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I wonder how much it is the parties changed and how much it is we changed as a people. When I was a kid it was a race to the middle, the majority of the population could vote either way. Now the middle is basically gone and power is from who can get their base motivated.

    • wanderer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      The late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:

      You start out in 1954 by saying, “N*****, n*****, n*****.” By 1968 you can’t say “n*****”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N*****, n*****.”

      https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

      This is the foundation of the current Republican party. There is nothing redeemable.

    • vonbaronhans@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I wish Democrats were willing to put in the same amount of endless, ceaseless planning and toiling and preparing so when an opportunity arises, you can snatch it up. Republicans did this with the Supreme Court, with religion in schools, etc etc etc. Last time Democrats had both Houses and the Presidency, we got barely anything (to my memory at least).

      I wish Democrats had an ounce of Republicans’ ability not just to shape narratives, but to conjure them from thin air and still dominate the news cycle.

      I wish Democrats were as willing to bend to the extremists in their own party as the Republicans do. That’s a real monkey’s paw wish right there, but at the moment the extreme right is literal fascists and the extreme left just wants the cool quality of life stuff the Nordic countries already have.

      Speaking personally… yeah we ARE divided here in the US. It kind of IS that bad. There are a lot of reasons for it, but in my mind the biggest thing is the legacy of slavery in this country. It’s not a scar… it’s still bleeding because bigots keep picking the scab. There’s been so many knock on effects from it that have gone unexamined and unaddressed because there are enough bigots to be a stupid but effective voting block.

  • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m baffled how anyone that isn’t a straight white male with money convinces themselves they’re part of the Republican Club.

    All these people grasping at party acceptance are doing is screaming “hey I’m a piece of shit too!”

    • RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Most people will not admit to themselves that they are wrong.

      It’s as simple as that.

      We are all most people about something.

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m a school bus driver and I work with a few Trump-supporting lesbians. It’s no mystery why: they really, really hate black people and that hatred blinds them to any possible conception of their own self-interest. For good measure they’re also staunchly pro-union.

      • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Bruh, same team, same fight.

        How could they not see how hypocritical that is?

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Ask yourself the same question. Not trying to pick on you but think of all the people on your side that are only on your side because of they agree with you on like 25% of the issues or because or some quality.

          Just an example of something people are relatively calm about: I can be pro-union for lumberjacks but not want the Pacific Northwest to become a dead parking lot and the spotted owl to be extinct. I agree with them on one issue and not others.

          • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            It’s the idea that one marginalized group could marginalize another group. I get they may not agree on intricate political ideas, but to be racist while being part of a group of people that is constantly treated as lesser for similar reasons… That baffles me.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Criminals can be victims, victims can be criminals. Those are two facts that have nothing to do with each other. Besides the oppressed always punch down. There is a reason why that 12 year old was mean to you when you were 7 and didn’t go to the nearest biker bar and start talking smack. If this concept is still confusing go on Blue Sky or Twitter and attract attention to yourself. Watch how fast the oppressed smell weakness on you.

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I know one gay republican. He’s just a incredibly conceded person. Grew up in a toxic environment and that toxicity is normalized for him.