The Presidential Debate of June 27th

[Ivan Denisovich]

There is no hard definition of this beyond rejecting liberal principles (though still using liberal language at least in part) and wanting to transform democratic state into parody of itself.

That's really on-point. They want to claim the language of liberalism, but want illiberal mean to enforce it. Freedom for everyone, but wimmenfolk get harnessed to the birthing-straps and black folks get kept in "black jobs".

Never mind the illegals who pluck our tomatoes and clip our celery -- they can't vote so they don't matter at all.

But hey, we want rights for all, now don't we?

Exactly. New right seeing that yearning for Hitler did not bring the votes started co-opting liberal language and sadly results seems to be good (for them) judging by popularity of far right worldwide.

Of course one can say that it shows something being deeply wrong with democracy (or rather elected politicians) if voters fall for it and even I must say that sometimes they stumble upon real problems, though their solutions are beyond idiotic.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's really on-point. They want to claim the language of liberalism, but want illiberal mean to enforce it. Freedom for everyone, but wimmenfolk get harnessed to the birthing-straps and black folks get kept in "black jobs".

Never mind the illegals who pluck our tomatoes and clip our celery -- they can't vote so they don't matter at all.

But hey, we want rights for all, now don't we?

Exactly. New right seeing that yearning for Hitler did not bring the votes started co-opting liberal language and sadly results seems to be good (for them) judging by popularity of far right worldwide.

Of course one can say that it shows something being deeply wrong with democracy (or rather elected politicians) if voters fall for it and even I must say that sometimes they stumble upon real problems, though their solutions are beyond idiotic.

I think it speaks more to our electorate and our system of education, rather than democracy itself. Democracy does indeed require an educated electorate, and that does scare politicians, but I'd say it falls on voters who can't discern bullshit from apple-butter.

[Ivan Denisovich]

Exactly. New right seeing that yearning for Hitler did not bring the votes started co-opting liberal language and sadly results seems to be good (for them) judging by popularity of far right worldwide.

Of course one can say that it shows something being deeply wrong with democracy (or rather elected politicians) if voters fall for it and even I must say that sometimes they stumble upon real problems, though their solutions are beyond idiotic.

I think it speaks more to our electorate and our system of education, rather than democracy itself. Democracy does indeed require an educated electorate, and that does scare politicians, but I'd say it falls on voters who can't discern bullshit from apple-butter.

Educated electorate is one thing but I would put more blame on politicians. What voters can do when politician lies deliberately about what he will do after being elected? To me it is no wonder that people buy into far right message of mainstream politicians not giving a shit about them as it is dog own truth. It's simply that far righters despite making correct diagnosis offer "cure" that is worse than disease.

[The Grand Nudger]

People have been studying this since the 90's when it appears to have begun (in the us at least).  The victimhood complex of white supremacy.  It knowingly exploits real problems - many of which it has intentionally created, as the backdrop for that victimhood complex, in a population programmed towards liberalism and liberal language.  

The middlemen may mean it, but institutionally, it's a way of cracking the working class so that it can't threaten our owners.

[Silver]

When you don't think, you allow them to do the thinking for you.

[Jackalope]

The middlemen may mean it, but institutionally, it's a way of cracking the working class so that it can't threaten our owners.

Gotta keep the proles from unitiing in common cause, of course

[Ravenshire]

Then you're not paying any fucking attention at all.

I think @Leonardo17 is actually right, insofar as the Republicans have any ideology at all. The Republicans who really believe their ideology -- Kinzinger, Cheney, Romney, and so on -- have already walked out. Not that that's a good thing, they should have stayed and fought for the soul of the party, but the ragged remainders don't give a shit about ideology at all, they just want to hitch their trailer to the Trump oxen and hope to make out.

The remainders have no ideology. They're sucking the cultish dick, the JD Vances of the world. The ideologues are bailing out. That's good for 2024. We'll see how deep that "conviction" is.

The truly problematic ideologies are't held by the ones who have walked out, but by the fascists who remain, and Trump is the enabler-in-chief.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The truly problematic ideologies are't held by the ones who have walked out, but by the fascists who remain, and Trump is the enabler-in-chief.

They have no ideology. They only have a lust for power. Ted Cruz took Trump insinuating his father was involved in the JFK assassination, and then calling his wife ugly, and then turned around and gratefully bolted down his share of schlong in order to ride Trumpeteer votes. That's not to say their lack of ideology is not a big problem -- it is.

I believe that like Cruz, most of them aren't ideologues, but rather office-holders enamored of power already gained, or like Vance, sticking onto the Trumpeteers like a remora on a shark in order to scavenge a better living than they could find swimming the ocean on their own.

Rather than Trump being their enabler-in-chief, Trump is rather their coattail-puller, and they only enable him insofar as they can ride his coattails, in my opinion. I think you may have it backwards. They need his base a lot more than he needs them.

[h4ym4n]

The reasons they all denounced Trump in the beginning then deep throating him now is because they were shown project 2025.

That is their goal, to make this the Xian States of America.

[Ivan Denisovich]

The truly problematic ideologies are't held by the ones who have walked out, but by the fascists who remain, and Trump is the enabler-in-chief.

They have no ideology. They only have a lust for power. Ted Cruz took Trump insinuating his father was involved in the JFK assassination, and then calling his wife ugly, and then turned around and gratefully bolted down his share of schlong in order to ride Trumpeteer votes.  That's not to say their lack of ideology is not a big problem -- it is.

I believe that like Cruz, most of them aren't ideologues, but rather office-holders enamored of power already gained, or like Vance, sticking onto the Trumpeteers like a remora on a shark in order to scavenge a better living than they could find swimming the ocean on their own.

Rather than Trump being their enabler-in-chief, Trump is rather their coattail-puller, and they only enable him insofar as they can ride his coattails, in my opinion. I think you may have it backwards. They need his base a lot more than he needs them.

I don't really believe in existence of non-ideological politicians (or humans for that matter). Sure ideology could take second place to lust for power but why wouldn't it be ideology that pushes them to said lust? Whether they're fascists, authoritarians, reactionaries, illiberals or nationalists (or whatever else) it is perfect reason for them to want to get power to remade US in their image.

In my view we all have our ideologies (perhaps incoherent or fragmented sometimes as befits XXI century, or staying in the background). It's just that not everyone broadcast them loudly.