The Marjorie Taylor Greene thread.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I should also like to point out, civil wars do not start out of the blue. There is most often years of unrest preceding something as big as a civil war. And in this case this is a very large country with very diverse populations (plural). TX can't even get a good secession going, let alone sponsor a civil war.

 

[bruto]

Nope, not during Vietnam and for the other end of the spectrum, not during Aryan Nations skinheads circle jerk and not during Bundy's little family matter, you name it. We've seen this movie before and not once was it ever close to an actual viable insurrection.

I think we're closer now than we were then. I don't fear that it will happen any day, but I am not pleased by the direction things are going.

 

[smartcooky]

Read my lips: "you don't even live here" is not synonymous for "you couldn't possibly know anything about what happens in a country you don't live in", italicized or not.

I'm pretty sure being special has nothing to do with it.

So you have friends/relatives here in the US that are worried civil war is about to breakout here? Do they know Jan 6 was a failure and the remnants are being rounded up and charged? Who do they think is left that are still getting ready for battle? Tell me, do they believe Dump is leading this battle?

Well let's see, if you define it as a couple of idiots who read The Turner Diaries and blew up a big building, then I can safely say that's not how I define a civil war. My idea of a civil war is more like Castro's insurrection, or what happened in Bosnia.

Now who is lecturing whom about what one can't understand? My point and I'm sticking to it, is there is not one whiff of a civil war here in this country. Maybe some weekend warriors tell each other wet dreams about the second coming of Dump. Don't you think if the Maoris were about ready to rise up you'd at least know about it?

No they ******* have not. Terrorist acts, not a civil war. Come on, get real.

Told ya, get back to me in 6 months and we can compare notes.

You and I just obviously have different opinions about this, I don't think this is going to change anytime soon, however, I did notice that you snipped this out...

I have never seen you engaged in a falsehood up to your eyeballs like this.

And you still haven't, because its not a falsehood. If it was, you would be able to prove its falsity, and you can't... I know for a fact that you can't. If you think I'm wrong about this, post your proof that I'm wrong.

Care to address this now?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

You're still citing a subset of evangelicals. Note that category you are citing is not named "Evangelicals". It's named something that indicates it is a subset of Evangelicals.

A better number for total Evangelicals has already been cited. If you missed it just type "what percentage of the us population is evangelical" in to google. Google will likely cite the relevant number that is already cited, 35% or so. It might be as low as 30% by some estimates, but those estimates will be factoring our Evangelicals that aren't even relevant to the original point.

We are way off topic and it seems this issue is already dead, but I would like to understand what you are saying. Are you saying that there are Evangelicals who are not Protestant?

 

[Dragon]

We are way off topic and it seems this issue is already dead, but I would like to understand what you are saying. Are you saying that there are Evangelicals who are not Protestant?

https://www.gotquestions.org/evangelical-Catholicism.html

An evangelical Catholic is, quite simply, a Catholic who is evangelical. That is, an evangelical Catholic is a member of the Roman Catholic Church who is loyal to the pope, faithful to Catholic doctrine, observant of the sacraments, and possessing a desire to spread Catholicism into new areas.

OK - I guess we're going to get into an argument bout Evangelical used as a noun or adjective but it seems to me that, in the USA at least, "Evangelical" has, wrongly, become synonymous with "Fundamentalist Protestant".

 

[Lurch]

As to the dangers of something like a looming civil war...

Looking to past discontent in prior decades and saying, "We've seen this movie before and nothing came of it" is to miss much. These days we have several factors not previously present, or not to near the degree we see today:

- A shrinking demographic of fearful whites dreading the browning of the nation.
- A frightfully large portion of the populace in a cult of personality, rejecting reason, silo'd in their bubbles and believing bat-crap crazy stuff.
- Politicians and law-makers given to outright anti-democratic scumbaggery, and susceptible to malign manipulation by foreign meddlers.
- A media wing of potent reach promulgating conspiracy theories, lies and the propaganda of the nation's enemies.

I posit that nothing like this mix, on this scale, has existed in the US before. The novelty merits caution and watchfulness, not blithe dismissal.

 

[smartcooky]

As to the dangers of something like a looming civil war...

Looking to past discontent in prior decades and saying, "We've seen this movie before and nothing came of it" is to miss much. These days we have several factors not previously present, or not to near the degree we see today:

- A shrinking demographic of fearful whites dreading the browning of the nation.
- A frightfully large portion of the populace in a cult of personality, rejecting reason, silo'd in their bubbles and believing bat-crap crazy stuff.
- Politicians and law-makers given to outright anti-democratic scumbaggery, and susceptible to malign manipulation by foreign meddlers.
- A media wing of potent reach promulgating conspiracy theories, lies and the propaganda of the nation's enemies.

I posit that nothing like this mix, on this scale, has existed in the US before. The novelty merits caution and watchfulness, not blithe dismissal.

THIS!

As I keep trying to explain to Ginger (to no avail) a civil war/domestic terrorism campaign is by no means certain, but the risk is a lot higher now that it has been for a very long time.

For those who take exception to my equating of a civil war with a terrorist campaign, I suggest they find a copy of a 2013 article in the Journal of Politics by Jessica Stanton, associate professor of political science at Temple University and a human rights research fellow with the University of Minnesota's Human Rights Program. The article is called "Terrorism in the context of Civil War". I read it some years ago, but I can only find paid links to it on line. It is a very interesting article and it represents the current thinking about civil wars and their relationship to domestic terrorism.

 

[Babbylonian]

It should also be noted that it's not just gullible, deluded dummies on the right we have to worry about. The left, especially in southern states, is being given good reason to resort to violence as Republicans actively try to disenfranchise those most likely to vote against them. When their only other recourse is through a court system that is stacked against them, it becomes more and more likely that violence will truly be their only option to preserve democracy.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Are you saying that there are Evangelicals who are not Protestant?

No, and I don't really care about that. It's apparently true though*. I am simply accepting peoples self identification as an Evangelical. The specific number I used for most of this thread (34% of the US) comes from the link Skeptic Ginger provided. That number can be supported by other sources (such as the simple search I described a couple days ago). Self identification as Evangelical seems to track very well with political views so I'm using it.

Intersect Evangelical with "white" and you get a snapshot of people that are heavily on the Republican side. The relevance for this thread is that these idea which are completely foreign to most people on this board are accepted at extremely high rates amongst Republicans and their close associates. MTG looks pretty normal to a whole lot more people than we would care to think (not that she necessarily appeals to all of them). And it also means that churches as a political power aren't dead. One branch of "the church" is pretty much synonomous with one of the two major political parties.

Summary: Wacky religious beliefs are by no means a fringe and one party is dominated by them.

* I suspect based on dictionary definitions most Evangelicals are protestants. Whether they say that or not appear to be a part of the confusion. Remember that there are quite few ideas that fly in the face of reality amongst these people. Ideas like "Catholics aren't Christians" and "I'm not religious, I have a personal relationship with God" are relevant here. Who knows what these people think of the label "Protestant".

 

[zooterkin]

Please keep to the topic of the thread, which is not, among other things, about trolls. There are plenty of existing threads in which to discuss that, or you can start a new one.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin

 

[jimbob]

No, and I don't really care about that. It's apparently true though*. I am simply accepting peoples self identification as an Evangelical. The specific number I used for most of this thread (34% of the US) comes from the link Skeptic Ginger provided. That number can be supported by other sources (such as the simple search I described a couple days ago). Self identification as Evangelical seems to track very well with political views so I'm using it.

Intersect Evangelical with "white" and you get a snapshot of people that are heavily on the Republican side. The relevance for this thread is that these idea which are completely foreign to most people on this board are accepted at extremely high rates amongst Republicans and their close associates. MTG looks pretty normal to a whole lot more people than we would care to think (not that she necessarily appeals to all of them). And it also means that churches as a political power aren't dead. One branch of "the church" is pretty much synonomous with one of the two major political parties.

Summary: Wacky religious beliefs are by no means a fringe and one party is dominated by them.

* I suspect based on dictionary definitions most Evangelicals are protestants. Whether they say that or not appear to be a part of the confusion. Remember that there are quite few ideas that fly in the face of reality amongst these people. Ideas like "Catholics aren't Christians" and "I'm not religious, I have a personal relationship with God" are relevant here. Who knows what these people think of the label "Protestant".

Isn't one problem for her that many evangelicals tend to believe that women should be subservient to men?

 

[eerok]

Isn't one problem for her that many evangelicals tend to believe that women should be subservient to men?

One thing I've noticed about evangelicals is that they'll absolutely and fervently believe in whatever is convenient.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Isn't one problem for her that many evangelicals tend to believe that women should be subservient to men?

Not that I've noticed. Why do you think this is a problem for her?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Isn't one problem for her that many evangelicals tend to believe that women should be subservient to men?

Advocating that didn't seem to hurt Phyllis Schlafly much. She of course had an exemption from her husband to break those biblical rules she was advocating in general.

 

[JoeMorgue]

As I've said before the Right puts on a goddamn master class at how to walk into a room with 100 Left Handed People, openly insult Left Handed People as a concept, and someone get most of the Left Handed People in the room to clearly hear a "But not you, you're one of the 'good ones'" subtext in your message. It's legit weird at times.

Women on the Right "know" that anti-women rhetoric from the Right doesn't mean them, it means those other women, those floozy out there abandoning God and getting abortions.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Doesn't subservient simply mean a married woman can't refuse her husband sex as this guy (ETA: Sorry, similar thread. I'm referring to Mark Samsel) was implying?

 

[Belz...]

One thing I've noticed about evangelicals is that they'll absolutely and fervently believe in whatever is convenient.

Isn't that true for most humans?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Isn't that true for most humans?

Yes but for most humans reality is pretty convenient.

Yes humans are never 100% intellectually and morally consistent and will always, to some degree, operate in their own best interest.

That doesn't excuse doing so every degree.

 

[Belz...]

Yes but for most humans reality is pretty convenient.

I think you'd be surprised how inconvenient it is to most of us, to the point that it's ignored or downright denied.

 

[bruto]

Yes but for most humans reality is pretty convenient.

Yes humans are never 100% intellectually and morally consistent and will always, to some degree, operate in their own best interest.

That doesn't excuse doing so every degree.

One of the things that continues to surprise me is that many of the people in question do not actually operate in their own best interest. They may believe that this is what they are doing, but only because demagogues ply them with lies that conform to their biases, which they go along with even if they are, by any other measure, mind bogglingly stupid, if not insane. Go on about Jewish space lasers, hamburger confiscation, dandelion pandemics, and you can, it seems convince a certain portion of the population to complain of being robbed while handing you their wallets.