Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

susinpgh OP t1_j850qzh wrote

Reply to comment by avo_cado in Voting Rights Victory in Pennsylvania by susinpgh

The Republicans wanted to have a third party review of the 2020 election results. Part of their plan was to release individual voting records to this third party, which would contain sensitive information (like partial social security numbers).

I found another article that is more plain language:

https://www.spotlightpa.org/news/2023/02/pa-2020-election-audit-subpoena-voter-info-court-ruling/

101

quietreasoning t1_j85bgpo wrote

Trying to scare people off from voting in the future. GD Nazis

49

NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j85qchr wrote

I am happy about this ruling too, but calling the opposing party Nazis ad nauseum is kinda.... nauseating. Are they out slaughtering millions of innocent people? No. They're espousing political positions you disagree with. Here, they were arguing for something rather stupid - releasing voter personal information to some 3rd party. Still not genocide. Still not an attempt to topple the democratic governments of all of their geographic neighbors.

And they think the left is the Nazis. They look at how one right which is explicit in the Constitution can be broadly infringed by Democrat-led attacks while the Democrats demand recognition for a right which is not explicit in the document but exists in the penumbra.

So can we please temper the "Everyone but us is literally Hitler" nonsensical reaction crap?

−44

OldHeinzFactory t1_j85r4u5 wrote

Doug Mastriano is a reactionary christian theocrat who wants to abolish separation of church and state to push his warped views on everyone. He believes joe biden stolen the 2020 election and he paid for busloads of fascists to storm the capitol on january 6th which he was also at himself. He believes america is a "christian nation" that is "waging battle" against "evil". He openly rejects that the term "white nationalist" is bad. He is a fascist, plain and simple.

33

IamSauerKraut t1_j86ace3 wrote

Considering that MastriaNO is not a Catholic (note: not everyone with an Italian surname is Catholic), why would you post such a thing?

−17

susinpgh OP t1_j85t1iu wrote

This is a really narrow take on the use of the term Nazi. Many of the actions of the current GOP bear a striking resemblance to the policies of fascism. There is a very good reason that this comparison; fascism is invariably oppressive.

Yes, it is unfortunate that conservatives are being painted with a broad brush. But they are also not disavowing the extreme far right adherents to repressive ideologies. The Republican party needs to distance itself from these extremists if they want to maintain any credibility.

31

IamSauerKraut t1_j86a1yd wrote

>it is unfortunate that conservatives are being painted with a broad brush

It is unfortunate that some folks are calling all republicans things such as nazis. Some of the republicans, however, very much act like nazis (excluding, of course, the butchering of Jews, Catholics, Poles, Ukranians, Russian soldiers, etc.), and some support the behaviors and acts of self-identified nazis. Perhaps if they would stop their micro-wars against certain segments of our population and against the whole concept of democracy.

4

decrementsf t1_j89jvwz wrote

> This is a really narrow take on the use of the term Nazi. Many of the actions of the current GOP bear a striking resemblance to the policies of fascism.

You know this take is wrong.

The East German Stasi labeled your neighbors fascist to justify use of state power to oppress the people. It is always the same.

The frame is wrong. Democrats get the same label when they speak out of turn about policy they disagree with. Meanwhile policy is indistinguishable from the worst roll-up of power that took place under Bush-Cheney.

There's a fascist in the room. It's the one holding the power to send law enforcement to your door, close your bank and social media accounts, and have Gawker-tier Inquisition harass your neighbors and friends while calling you the Nazi. Your family and friends and neighbors are good people. The ones who will stand next to you when misfortune strikes. Stand in the way to protect you from that same inquisition.

The correct frame is top-down authoritarianism vs whether the taxpaying public get a voice. The bounds of that conflict overlap all partisan orientations.

0

NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j85vk4r wrote

I appreciate the reasonable reply - it seems to be a diamond in the rough here.

Let's say, arguendo at least, I understand why "the Left" wants to label "the Right" (or at least some on the right) as fascists or Nazis. I try my best to understand the opposing argument as best I can before I dig in my heels on my own, and I can see at least some of what the Left feels is oppressive.

Can you try to cross the aisle and do the same for me? Here's some of what the Right is seeing, I think, when they say, as I've unfortunately heard, the Left are the New Nazis. There have been multiple pro-gun court rulings. There was the Heller decision and now the Bruen decision, both substantially supporting the individual right to keep and bear arms. Yet, despite the Bruen decision, has NY opened the way to legal concealed carry? Not as well as they'd have you believe. And other states have heavy restrictions on gun owners and gun ownership. Some cities have even more strict laws within their own confines. But while legal gun owners have continued to accept jumping through hoops to obtain legal firearms, criminals continue to ignore the ATF and obtain illegal weapons anyway. The Right essentially sees this as allowing criminals to be perpetually armed while restricting access to "law-abiding citizens." Meanwhile, we hear plenty about abortion and the "right" to abortion. There's no explicit grant of a right to obtain an abortion, yet I'd argue such an individual right falls to the People under the 10th Amendment. I believe Roe relied on the woman's 14th Amendment right to privacy.... itself a right that exists by interpretation of the court, not by explicit grant (remember that RBG herself didn't like Roe's reasoning, though I don't remember her specific grounds). All of this is to say, we argue all of this because there's no explicit grant of the right. But there is an explicit grant in the 2nd Amendment. And there really isn't a single time in history a government was taking gun rights from their people and the government turned out on the "right" side of history lol King George III had sent the redcoats to gather weapons, ammo and gunpowder from the colonists and that's how we got Lexington and Concord.

And guns are just the easiest example to thing of off the top of my head. I'll leave you with that for the moment. As far as disavowing, I've always sort of disagreed on how much a person is, themselves, incriminated by their failure to "disavow" someone else loudly enough to satisfy their opposition. FWIW, I think the smartest GOP have moved on from Trump, yet there's just enough of both sides still giving him attention to make it worth it for him.

−7

steelceasar t1_j861gg2 wrote

None of what you wrote addresses why the right is compared to fascists. The right wing is compared to fascists because of their broad distain for the democratic process, there unrelenting focus on maintaining cultural hegemony, by targeting this fake border crisis (what has changed since Biden took over, what policies or actions?). The glorification of Christian nationalism as a substitute for anything related to intellectualism (IE public education, college education, and "liberalism". And continuous reliance upon strong populist, authoritarian politicians like Trump and Desantis. I could go on, as there are still many authoritarian actions and perspectives that you can point to.

​

Also you don't have a very nuanced understanding of history if you think that the revolution boiled down to King George III trying to take everyone's guns. It is funny that you think that though, it certainly illustrates how your warped obsession with the 2nd amendment and firearms dictates how you view history and politics.

12

NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j86bkmv wrote

Ohh my lord. I love when you guys take what I said word for word and act like it's in a vacuum, or even better put words in my mouth. I am not saying "the revolution boiled down to" a gun grab. My lord. I said the very specific battles of Lexington and Concord, the "shot heard round the world" and all that? Look up why the redcoats were marching on those towns. Did I say "the revolution?" I mentioned specific things. Please do not straw man me - where you make an argument that is easier for you to attack and "win" over. Thank you.

−5

steelceasar t1_j86f5n0 wrote

"And there really isn't a single time in history a government was taking gun rights from their people and the government turned out on the "right" side of history lol King George III had sent the redcoats to gather weapons, ammo and gunpowder from the colonists and that's how we got Lexington and Concord."

You wrote the above. So you are in fact arguing that you did not mean what you said? I don't need to construct a straw man argument, because either you have no idea what you are talking about, or your written communication skills are so underdeveloped that you are incapable of articulating it.

3

NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j86ixwq wrote

Yes, I did write the above and I stand by it, but you have to take into consideration the entire block, not just cherry pick which parts you'd like to reply to.

In that entire reply, I was making several points that add up to my overall argument:

  1. Democrat-run legislatures are trying everything they can to avoid simple compliance with the SCOTUS Bruen decision.

  2. Gun owners see increasing regulatory hoops to jump through in acquiring firearms legally whilst criminals continue to ignore the laws to acquire their illegal weaponry... illegally.

  3. The Constitution deals with "the right of the People to keep and bear arms." You can argue about to whom the right is granted if you don't like the Heller decision. But it does explicitly refer to a "right" and it grants it by saying "it shall not be infringed" (logically, it has to have been granted and exist as a right if it can be protected from infringement, right?).

  4. a) There is no explicit mention of a "right" to abortion in the document, and so if that right does exist, it exists within something else that is explicit - i.e. the right to abortion exists in the penumbra, as SCOTUS has said. b) When gun owners are seeing their explicit right being infringed while Democrats demand their non-explicit right be upheld, it makes them feel just as angry as when women feel their rights are being infringed.

"And"

  1. a) There really isn't a single time in history a government was taking gun rights from their people and the government turned out on the "right" side of history, for example b) King George was on the wrong side of history when, for example he started the American Revolution by sending troops to confiscate arms from the colonists.

AND SO.... all of that was to support my ORIGINAL argument, which is simply that the accusation of Nazi affiliation is being bandied about unnecessarily and ad nauseum. I was not attempting to boil down the entire revolution or even just the whole "taxation without representation" thing into my own gun rights argument. My bit at the end of that whole block about King George was merely one example to support the argument that governments restricting or taking firearms rights aren't ever "in the right," which itself was to support the larger argument at hand (about the over-use of "Nazi," to be perfectly clear. I'd hate to leave any bit of ambiguity for you to cling to.)

My communication skills have served me thus fine so far in life. I used to be a pre-law student. I was in my 7th undergrad semester before ditching the field for IT. I did crap tons of writing to get to that 7th semester, my friend, so if some guy on Reddit wants to critique my writing.... I have to critique your reading skills.

−1

IamSauerKraut t1_j876kd3 wrote

>Democrat-run legislatures are trying everything they can to avoid simple compliance with the SCOTUS Bruen decision.

The case which is the topic of this thread has nothing to do with a Democrat-run legislature. Indeed, the Petitioner in the action is a Republican-run committee in the Republican-majority PA State Senate. It seems as if you are attempting to hijack the thread. Or, perhaps your communication skills are not all that great.

1

steelceasar t1_j86le19 wrote

I can see why you would abandon the liberal arts, reality and history have a little too much nuance for you to engage with adequately I guess.

0

NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j86oln3 wrote

If you have nothing to reply with except ad hom attacks, just save your time and effort.

2

IamSauerKraut t1_j8767i7 wrote

>There have been multiple pro-gun court rulings.

Which have very little do - even as analogies - with the ruling in this specific kerfuffle between 2 branches of government in which the 3rd branch is reluctant to engage.

2

Timewasted11222 t1_j85v294 wrote

Tell that to Biden who is the close friend of an extremist.

−21

steelceasar t1_j86036o wrote

And who would that be?

7

Timewasted11222 t1_j866iuv wrote

And also said he didn’t want black students going to school with white kids. But let me guess he’s changed.

−11

IamSauerKraut t1_j86a5wt wrote

Byrd has long been dead. And he changed his tune long before that.

9

yeags86 t1_j87ag3e wrote

Just because you can’t change your shitty opinions doesn’t mean others can’t.

4

Timewasted11222 t1_j8665az wrote

Robert Byrd . Look it up

−12

yeags86 t1_j87hez9 wrote

Nick Fuentes. Look him up.

4

Timewasted11222 t1_j88fo4k wrote

I know yeah the white supremist who’s actually Hispanic. Yeah makes as much sense as the democrat party. Nice try but but cnn calling him a supremist doesn’t mean it actually is

0

Timewasted11222 t1_j88ftza wrote

Or is it because he’s a proud American and to you clowns that means your a white nationalist

1

quietreasoning t1_j85qqag wrote

Not sorry for being politically incorrect. Shove the both sides bullshit. The people who hate immigrants, jews, brown people, and women are called nazis. They are a danger and a scourge. Just wait til they shoot out your local power station on a cold winter night.

26

Timewasted11222 t1_j85vfm5 wrote

What party hates Jews women and brown people ? Last I checked democrats do nothing but use people for votes. The only reason you think like that is because you lack intellect and can’t formulate your own opinion. Stop watching CNN and the rest of your bullshit media lying agencies

−19

NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j85r985 wrote

That's a lovely straw man you've made in order to argue against a simplistic generalization you've made in your head. Perhaps you're an intelligent person and your anger, coupled with encouragement from the up-votes of the Reddit hive mind, has simply prevented you from making a calm and reasonable argument. Try again! I'll wait.

−22

quietreasoning t1_j85uaf2 wrote

It's reality and you're either thinking you're benefiting from it or intentionally ignoring it to act like this. Jan 6th insurrectionists and traitors and terrorists are what these people are or supporting. It must be acknowledged with proper punishment, imprisonment, forbiddance from office, and loss of voting rights. We have laws that have been broken and we need to see justice.

20

Atrocious_1 t1_j85umtr wrote

How is what they claimed a strawman?

14

NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j85wif3 wrote

They said, in reply to my statement about both the left and the right of the US political spectrum not really being "nazis":

>The people who hate immigrants, jews, brown people, and women are called nazis. They are a danger and a scourge. Just wait til they shoot out your local power station on a cold winter night.

Not sure what he's on about with the power station thing - perhaps I'm behind on current events - but let's look at the rest. Who "hates" those groups of people? Show me proof he isn't just making up a straw man. Show me proof that some noteworthy proportion of the "Right wing" or the GOP actually "hates" anyone. And not by your own subjective interpretation, I'm talking like I want to hear them saying who they hate and why - is it brown-skinned people because they're brown? Or are you just hearing about support for strong immigration policy and interpreting something you think is "hate"? Because otherwise, what they said is 100% straw man.

−13

Atrocious_1 t1_j85wnac wrote

Ok you're an idiot thanks

14

NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j85wsu4 wrote

I'm sorry you looked at a reasonable reply and decided to use an ad hom attack. That speaks boatloads about you. Please don't waste my time replying to me again.

−4

Atrocious_1 t1_j85y20t wrote

I didn't see anything reasonable. I saw someone who is either oblivious to how the current GOP operates with it's culture war issues, or is desperate to pretend it's not happening

6

NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j86brb2 wrote

Okay, thank you for such a substantive reply. I see the errors of my thinking, and now I agree with everything you say. I have up-voted each of your comments to reflect that I have joined into the hive mind. Thank you for being so enlightening. ;)

2

NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j86cjpi wrote

Also, "reasonable" doesn't mean you agree with it. You disagreeing with something doesn't make it unreasonable, irrational, illogical or anything at all. I'm sorry you've taken the position of disagreeing with me and yet not having anything to support your own position.

2

steelceasar t1_j862ksr wrote

> Show me proof he isn't just making up a straw man.

You have no idea what a strawman argument even is do you?

8

NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j86b9mv wrote

A straw man argument is one which you make up in order to attack it and "win" an easier battle. Yes, I do know, and I clearly demonstrated why the above is a straw man. You are pretending that these people hate something they never said they hate. You have put words in their mouths. You have created a straw man argument, which is that they hate minorities, so that you can see yourself as the victor. In fact, they do not hate minorities. You have created that position for them. Thus, the epitome of a straw man, but do go on. Tell me why that isn't a perfect example of such a logical fallacy.

1

Timewasted11222 t1_j87p9xg wrote

They’re all full of it, And they don’t make sense. Funny how they even think. They sound like they have that indoctrination that media has given them . You can see that cnn is watched in their homes probably all the time

2

ImperatorTempus42 t1_j85r6z6 wrote

When the GOP stops wanting to kill my grandmother for being brown-skinned, a Hispanic-American, and a Catholic, and stops wanting to wipe out my Jewish friends and relatives, and stops hating me for being a bisexual trans person, then they won't be Nazis.

Also they support and continue the genocide of LGBT folks with their "gay conversion" camps and actively encourage hunting trans children in schools.

12

NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j85rqet wrote

Please show me any evidence you have of any noteworthy proportion of the GOP wanting to "kill" anyone? I'm interested in the heaps of evidence you must have. I will remain open-minded as I review whatever you choose to submit in support of what I can otherwise only conclude is a ridiculous straw man argument.

E: I love when people get to reply to me and don't have to remain open to any reply that might counter their position. Wow. But, in reply to u/jesterwords:

Interesting, I see the scumbags in your article employed a rather familiar technique some in this thread may recognize: baselessly accusing your opposition of being a Nazi. ;)

I read that article. It objectively paints a very damning picture of DuPont and many DuPont execs, but beyond that, the article's support for the argument, here, that the GOP wants to "kill" people (on the level of Nazis, who quite literally slaughtered millions of innocent people) is extremely weak. If you went to the effort of proving every legislator who fell for DuPont's lobbying was GOP, it still wouldn't make it reasonable to call the GOP Nazis or even say that they want to kill people. Falling for billions of dollars of industry lobbying happens to Democrats, too - and gun control is an incredibly easy example of that. And falling for lobbying and making policy based on lobbying is more of an argument against Capitalism as a system than it is an argument that the GOP wants to kill anyone.

Since Reddit likes to allow the BS replies but then blocks me from countering.... u/Patiod: I need proof that anyone, but especially any noteworthy proportion of the GOP, is in a "Save the children, literally kill Democrats" mentality. Otherwise I can't move forward in this discussion with you.

−8

goplantagarden t1_j85tf7n wrote

Off the top of my head: My trans friend, who needed to quit her TX teaching job because of the constant death threats. The school basically told her she was a liability, although having worked there for several years with an exemplary teaching record.

Where is the proof you need? It's not really necessary for the rest of us when we can see for ourselves how conservatives behave and treat others every day.

Unfortunately for me I live in an ocean of conservatism and people don't bother holding back because they assume I feel the same way.

14

yeags86 t1_j87auh5 wrote

The Nazi’s didn’t start outright killing people. It was a slow burn. If you can’t see how the current GOP is going down the same path, you need to dust off a couple history books.

4

Patiod t1_j8dyixi wrote

Positioning all Democrats as pedophile "groomers" and child abusers sets gullible conservatives/Christians into a mindset where they need to "save the children" by killing Democrats. If you don't think this speech inspires murder, just look at the Comet Pizza debacle.

It's not binary: "Nazi" or "not-Nazi" - you don't get to Full Nazi overnight. I totally get your concern about cheapening the word "nazi" but there's value in warning people that we seem to be on a similar track to Germany in the 30s.

0

gdex86 t1_j88hi2m wrote

This is so lazy I was going to just snark and ignore but since people actually read lets break down how this is so fucking lazy and how intellectually dishonest it is.

>Are they out slaughtering millions of innocent people? No.

Yeah because that was late stage nazi actions. We luckily aren't there yet because we can still nip it in the bud. But the fact they want to have the government collect all information on people who request to transition is how we get there. When you are going to go and gather the location information of all of a marginalized people you are in the first steps towards a "final solution.

Now lets talk about the republican party in general. They are the party that is openly aligned with white ethnostate/supremacists. That's a pretty big step into nazism because well if you need me to explain that to you you are already lost. I'd also point out that the republican political message is almost entirely based on blaming some small marginalized group be it gays, drag queens, trans people, in Europe Muslims for the decline of the "white race". And if only they could get rid of "those people" they could improve things.

Secondly they are fascists. For the past 7 years it's been the republican point of view that any election they lose it's not because they lost but because it was stolen from them. Starting with the head of the party in Donald Trump. They called for the illegal over throw of an election, and their supporters went to the capital to attempt a violent over throw of the election. This isn't getting into the state level where we have multiple examples where upon losing an election they immediate start in the lame duck session voting away powers they had gladly used to keep the incoming party or administration from doing it.

So we got a party that has a bunch of racist fascists in it that want to purify America for the good of the white race. Your first defense is going to be "But it's not everyone." Yeah not everyone is like that, but the damning thing is that isn't enough of a deal breaker for them to get out. Many nazi's weren't deeply into the murder of the Jews but just were going to go along with the flow for the good of Germany. The party at large is fine with those people not only being in their party but greatly shaping it's political goals because of what Guns or Taxes. That is exactly like nazi germany.

So we got something that goosesteps like a brown shirt and heils like a brown shirt but you don't want to call it a brown shirt

2

eonerv t1_j88fefq wrote

No. They literally call themselves National Christians.

NatCs if you will. So yea, I'll still call a Nazi a Nazi thank you very much.

1

whomp1970 t1_j8dvm04 wrote

Man, I get it. Really, I get what you're trying to say.

But just like "Kleenex" now means tissues (rather than just one brand of tissues) and "Google it" means "use a search engine" (even if you use Bing) ...

I think "Nazi" has lost its specificity. It now literally means "someone exercising authority with evil intentions", or something else generic like that.

Railing against that change in word usage will do you no good.

It's like, technically, you're correct, but nobody cares and everyone understands what the intent was.

1

NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j8e03le wrote

But I'm not just technically correct. All this anger and vitriol spewed here at me hasn't proved that there is any noteworthy proportion of the GOP who wants these extremes. Hence why they're called extremists. If y'all are going to blanket label the other party anything without truly paying attention, while shoving so much hate into their arguments where it just isn't, then I can't help you folks. Clearly, the reactionary and immature "everyone is Nazis" is going to win out with the Reddit crowd, and no matter how many times I ask for proof of the allegations, none is provided, only "you should know," and, "You're just blind/ignorant," etc. If the Right wing failed to provide evidence as much as the Left in this post, they'd be crucified by the Left. Someone tried to show me 1 article about DuPont being evil and man was it a long read, but all it showed is that Dupont is a big, rich scummy lobbying company. When I tried to analyze the article, no one wants to play ball because they can't have their positions challenged when the almighty Reddit up-vote count is egging them on.

1

BabyBatterBaller t1_j86t298 wrote

The political party that is being opposed is currently saying, and pushing through legislation that LGBT+ persons, by sheerly mentioning their status as a LGBT+ person, even in as small of way as mentioning they have a Husband/Wife, in the vicinity of a child is 'grooming children'.

Grooming children is a literal crime. One you can go to jail for. It's fucking stupid to then argue then that they wouldn't push to have LGBT+ persons in jail for it.

0

NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j870c5i wrote

When you say "the political party" is doing something that seems to imply an official party position or support from a significant proportion of the party.

Can you prove either of those things regarding these grooming laws?

0

yeags86 t1_j87bcjx wrote

Well, FL and TX for starters. And Trumps bizarre video about “ending transgender” a week or two ago.

2

MeEvilBob t1_j86togk wrote

The republicans won't stop until they're allowed to appoint someone king of America, although they might settle for bringing back all the Jim Crow laws.

8

hooch t1_j86fjvp wrote

Yeah that sounds like a class action lawsuit waiting to happen

7

IamSauerKraut t1_j86kn2w wrote

No. Does not meet criteria.

4

hooch t1_j86pkv3 wrote

It would after the inevitable leak of private data from that third party

0

IamSauerKraut t1_j8717hl wrote

No one knows if the matter will reappear in the Senate's future. Committee essentially does not exist.

1