Conservative Ideology 2024: NOTHING BUT LIES AND FEARMONGERING

[jhu72]

Peyton Manning is still drinking Bud Light in public. The republiCON world is outraged.

[Brooklyn]

"Beeeatch!!!"



LOL! So true of both of them.

[MDlaxfan76]

Peyton Manning is still drinking Bud Light in public. The republiCON world is outraged.

Funny, Peyton has been mentioning, specifically, wanting a Bud Lite or Budweiser for years after big wins.

Huge free advertising for the company as he wasn't a paid spokesman.

That said, I think he owns stakes in two Bud distributorships, may still.

ahh, the outrage...

[ardilla secreta]

Texas removes mandate for construction worker water breaks amid heat
New legislation in the state removes protections, including ordinances in Austin and Dallas that required 10-minute hydration breaks every four hours.
https://scrippsnews.com/stories/texas-r ... amid-heat/

Gov Abbott is undeterred by heatwave as he signs the bill. The legislature needs a water break as they must have had a heat stroke to forward such a bill. What a crazy state.

[youthathletics]

Texas removes mandate for construction worker water breaks amid heat
New legislation in the state removes protections, including ordinances in Austin and Dallas that required 10-minute hydration breaks every four hours.
https://scrippsnews.com/stories/texas-r ... amid-heat/

Gov Abbott is undeterred by heatwave as he signs the bill. The legislature needs a water break as they must have had a heat stroke to forward such a bill. What a crazy state.

Hit piece. It is because it does not do enough and is inconsistently practiced by contractors. WAter is not enough, so is shade, time of day etc. Read more of the linked articles Response to Repeal. And nothing in the state can override OSHA.

OSHA is developing a heat standard for workplaces, though the process of doing so takes years of input and fine tuning. In the meantime, the advice from OSHA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety is more rigorous than the local Texas laws: one cup of water every 15 to 20 minutes.

[MDlaxfan76]

Texas removes mandate for construction worker water breaks amid heat
New legislation in the state removes protections, including ordinances in Austin and Dallas that required 10-minute hydration breaks every four hours.
https://scrippsnews.com/stories/texas-r ... amid-heat/

Gov Abbott is undeterred by heatwave as he signs the bill. The legislature needs a water break as they must have had a heat stroke to forward such a bill. What a crazy state.

Hit piece. It is because it does not do enough and is inconsistently practiced by contractors. WAter is not enough, so is shade, time of day etc. Read more of the linked articles Response to Repeal. And nothing in the state can override OSHA.

OSHA is developing a heat standard for workplaces, though the process of doing so takes years of input and fine tuning. In the meantime, the advice from OSHA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety is more rigorous than the local Texas laws: one cup of water every 15 to 20 minutes.

Whoa, did you actually read the Dive article?

You do realize that the only one saying that it made sense to eliminate local minimum mandates, with no superseding tougher mandate, whether state or federal was...wait for it... the association of employers who need to give their workers at least this much break?

The other guy is an specific employer who obviously does more than the minimum and is critical of others doing less...he wants a higher minimum level of protection.

"advice" isn't a mandate.

So, they got rid of the mandate...with no stricter regulation protecting workers was , what, so that employers would do more???

[youthathletics]

Texas removes mandate for construction worker water breaks amid heat
New legislation in the state removes protections, including ordinances in Austin and Dallas that required 10-minute hydration breaks every four hours.
https://scrippsnews.com/stories/texas-r ... amid-heat/

Gov Abbott is undeterred by heatwave as he signs the bill. The legislature needs a water break as they must have had a heat stroke to forward such a bill. What a crazy state.

Hit piece. It is because it does not do enough and is inconsistently practiced by contractors. WAter is not enough, so is shade, time of day etc. Read more of the linked articles Response to Repeal. And nothing in the state can override OSHA.

OSHA is developing a heat standard for workplaces, though the process of doing so takes years of input and fine tuning. In the meantime, the advice from OSHA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety is more rigorous than the local Texas laws: one cup of water every 15 to 20 minutes.

Whoa, did you actually read the Dive article?

You do realize that the only one saying that it made sense to eliminate local minimum mandates, with no superseding tougher mandate, whether state or federal was...wait for it... the association of employers who need to give their workers at least this much break?

The other guy is an specific employer who obviously does more than the minimum and is critical of others doing less...he wants a higher minimum level of protection.

"advice" isn't a mandate.

So, they got rid of the mandate...with no stricter regulation protecting workers was , what, so that employers would do more???

I read it, the HB, and all associated articles linked....certainly could have missed something. Bottom line, no business can override OSHA minimum standards....as a business owner you should understand this. Surprised you are picking a fight, I suppose you may rule with an iron fist if you find this unwarranted. I recommend that you might want to brush up on the OSHA Technical Manual (OTM)....you can start at Section III Chapter 4.

[Brooklyn]

health regulation?

we don't need no steenkin' health regulations!

let them die!



Small wonder why it's called Texass.

[MDlaxfan76]

Texas removes mandate for construction worker water breaks amid heat
New legislation in the state removes protections, including ordinances in Austin and Dallas that required 10-minute hydration breaks every four hours.
https://scrippsnews.com/stories/texas-r ... amid-heat/

Gov Abbott is undeterred by heatwave as he signs the bill. The legislature needs a water break as they must have had a heat stroke to forward such a bill. What a crazy state.

Hit piece. It is because it does not do enough and is inconsistently practiced by contractors. WAter is not enough, so is shade, time of day etc. Read more of the linked articles Response to Repeal. And nothing in the state can override OSHA.

OSHA is developing a heat standard for workplaces, though the process of doing so takes years of input and fine tuning. In the meantime, the advice from OSHA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety is more rigorous than the local Texas laws: one cup of water every 15 to 20 minutes.

Whoa, did you actually read the Dive article?

You do realize that the only one saying that it made sense to eliminate local minimum mandates, with no superseding tougher mandate, whether state or federal was...wait for it... the association of employers who need to give their workers at least this much break?

The other guy is an specific employer who obviously does more than the minimum and is critical of others doing less...he wants a higher minimum level of protection.

"advice" isn't a mandate.

So, they got rid of the mandate...with no stricter regulation protecting workers was , what, so that employers would do more???

I read it, the HB, and all associated articles linked....certainly could have missed something. Bottom line, no business can override OSHA minimum standards....as a business owner you should understand this. Surprised you are picking a fight, I suppose you may rule with an iron fist if you find this unwarranted. I recommend that you might want to brush up on the OSHA Technical Manual (OTM)....you can start at Section III Chapter 4.

Sure, IF there's actually a rule, a mandate, a law.
But on this topic, (as the article made clear) OSHA currently only has "advice"; and your suggested manual says Recommended and that has zero teeth.

All "should", no "must".

So, when you outlaw a mandate with nothing but advice to replace, you open the door to no effort at all.

This could have been done with a state mandate that is more stringent, outlawing something considered too little, but they did NOT do so.

And surely they knew that was the case.

Here we go again with larger government stepping in to prevent more local government from trying to protect its citizens...we can't have no stinking' mandates...crazy. Right wing applauds.

[youthathletics]

Texas removes mandate for construction worker water breaks amid heat
New legislation in the state removes protections, including ordinances in Austin and Dallas that required 10-minute hydration breaks every four hours.
https://scrippsnews.com/stories/texas-r ... amid-heat/

Gov Abbott is undeterred by heatwave as he signs the bill. The legislature needs a water break as they must have had a heat stroke to forward such a bill. What a crazy state.

Hit piece. It is because it does not do enough and is inconsistently practiced by contractors. WAter is not enough, so is shade, time of day etc. Read more of the linked articles Response to Repeal. And nothing in the state can override OSHA.

OSHA is developing a heat standard for workplaces, though the process of doing so takes years of input and fine tuning. In the meantime, the advice from OSHA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety is more rigorous than the local Texas laws: one cup of water every 15 to 20 minutes.

Whoa, did you actually read the Dive article?

You do realize that the only one saying that it made sense to eliminate local minimum mandates, with no superseding tougher mandate, whether state or federal was...wait for it... the association of employers who need to give their workers at least this much break?

The other guy is an specific employer who obviously does more than the minimum and is critical of others doing less...he wants a higher minimum level of protection.

"advice" isn't a mandate.

So, they got rid of the mandate...with no stricter regulation protecting workers was , what, so that employers would do more???

I read it, the HB, and all associated articles linked....certainly could have missed something. Bottom line, no business can override OSHA minimum standards....as a business owner you should understand this. Surprised you are picking a fight, I suppose you may rule with an iron fist if you find this unwarranted. I recommend that you might want to brush up on the OSHA Technical Manual (OTM)....you can start at Section III Chapter 4.

Sure, IF there's actually a rule, a mandate, a law.
But on this topic, (as the article made clear) OSHA currently only has "advice"; and your suggested manual says Recommended and that has zero teeth.

All "should", no "must".

So, when you outlaw a mandate with nothing but advice to replace, you open the door to no effort at all.

This could have been done with a state mandate that is more stringent, outlawing something considered too little, but they did NOT do so.

And surely they knew that was the case.

Here we go again with larger government stepping in to prevent more local government from trying to protect its citizens...we can't have no stinking' mandates...crazy. Right wing applauds.

You clearly have not done your homework.....Biden actually did do something and OSHA IS providing MUST adherence. As I suggested earlier.....you should consider brush up on your OSHA oversight.

https://www.eenews.net/articles/heres-h ... is-summer/

https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/file ... 00-024.pdf

Not following your logic on larger government stepping in.....if one thing has always been evident, it is small businesses flying under the radar breaking rules and not adhering to safe work standards; its one of the primary reasons labor unions even exist and many non-union orgs are so reluctant to allow collective bargaining, why, b/c they'll then have to actually do the right thing by their employees.

[MDlaxfan76]

Texas removes mandate for construction worker water breaks amid heat
New legislation in the state removes protections, including ordinances in Austin and Dallas that required 10-minute hydration breaks every four hours.
https://scrippsnews.com/stories/texas-r ... amid-heat/

Gov Abbott is undeterred by heatwave as he signs the bill. The legislature needs a water break as they must have had a heat stroke to forward such a bill. What a crazy state.

Hit piece. It is because it does not do enough and is inconsistently practiced by contractors. WAter is not enough, so is shade, time of day etc. Read more of the linked articles Response to Repeal. And nothing in the state can override OSHA.

OSHA is developing a heat standard for workplaces, though the process of doing so takes years of input and fine tuning. In the meantime, the advice from OSHA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety is more rigorous than the local Texas laws: one cup of water every 15 to 20 minutes.

Whoa, did you actually read the Dive article?

You do realize that the only one saying that it made sense to eliminate local minimum mandates, with no superseding tougher mandate, whether state or federal was...wait for it... the association of employers who need to give their workers at least this much break?

The other guy is an specific employer who obviously does more than the minimum and is critical of others doing less...he wants a higher minimum level of protection.

"advice" isn't a mandate.

So, they got rid of the mandate...with no stricter regulation protecting workers was , what, so that employers would do more???

I read it, the HB, and all associated articles linked....certainly could have missed something. Bottom line, no business can override OSHA minimum standards....as a business owner you should understand this. Surprised you are picking a fight, I suppose you may rule with an iron fist if you find this unwarranted. I recommend that you might want to brush up on the OSHA Technical Manual (OTM)....you can start at Section III Chapter 4.

Sure, IF there's actually a rule, a mandate, a law.
But on this topic, (as the article made clear) OSHA currently only has "advice"; and your suggested manual says Recommended and that has zero teeth.

All "should", no "must".

So, when you outlaw a mandate with nothing but advice to replace, you open the door to no effort at all.

This could have been done with a state mandate that is more stringent, outlawing something considered too little, but they did NOT do so.

And surely they knew that was the case.

Here we go again with larger government stepping in to prevent more local government from trying to protect its citizens...we can't have no stinking' mandates...crazy. Right wing applauds.

You clearly have not done your homework.....Biden actually did do something and OSHA IS providing MUST adherence. As I suggested earlier.....you should consider brush up on your OSHA oversight.

https://www.eenews.net/articles/heres-h ... is-summer/

https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/file ... 00-024.pdf

Not following your logic on larger government stepping in.....if one thing has always been evident, it is small businesses flying under the radar breaking rules and not adhering to safe work standards; its one of the primary reasons labor unions even exist and many non-union orgs are so reluctant to allow collective bargaining, why, b/c they'll then have to actually do the right thing by their employees.

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that there's a "must", but then I read (which perhaps you didn't do?) your first link:

The emphasis program won’t start out as an enforcement tool right away. Rather, for the first few months, OSHA compliance officers will merely consult with employers, visiting work sites and explaining what needs to be done to make it safe. Formal inspections that could result in citations for violations will begin later.

Sounds like not a "must" this summer; might be later... I know the Guide you'd mentioned prior definitely no "must".

Just read your second link. I see "encouragement" but no definitive requirements. I also see encouragement of States to adopt a "plan"...has Texas done so?

Do you see something more definitive?

I don't run a business where this is remotely an issue, so am fully prepared to learn about it. I did run such back in the 90's, but never had any OSHA issues...we did pay attention to forklift safety training, etc, and all sorts of other regulatory inspections but don't think I saw OSHA in 5 years running that distribution business.

What I see so far is "emphasis" which is surely a good thing in directing OSHA to pay attention to heat issues, but I don't see firm requirements or teeth.

[MDlaxfan76]

Not following your logic on larger government stepping in.....if one thing has always been evident, it is small businesses flying under the radar breaking rules and not adhering to safe work standards; its one of the primary reasons labor unions even exist and many non-union orgs are so reluctant to allow collective bargaining, why, b/c they'll then have to actually do the right thing by their employees.

On your last question, this is a State overruling city, town, counties which, in the absence of State rules, have instituted mandates for water breaks.

Large government overruling local, not to increase safety for workers, but to increase flexibility for employers.

This particular State (Texas) doesn't have stricter rules, nor has the federal government done so...sounds like they'll be paying more attention at OSHA, trying to come up with specific rules, but not yet...meanwhile, local governments are being told they can't have minimum standards.

So, in contrast with traditional conservative thought in which as much government regulation as feasible should be done with government close to their communities, this is government actually preventing them from doing so...

Usually the objection is to larger government entities insisting on stronger standards than a local government, which may be more susceptible to industry capture.

But the real theme is protect the employer...

[PizzaSnake]

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that there's a "must", but then I read (which perhaps you didn't do?) your first link:

The emphasis program won’t start out as an enforcement tool right away. Rather, for the first few months, OSHA compliance officers will merely consult with employers, visiting work sites and explaining what needs to be done to make it safe. Formal inspections that could result in citations for violations will begin later.

Sounds like not a "must" this summer; might be later... I know the Guide you'd mentioned prior definitely no "must".

Just read your second link. I see "encouragement" but no definitive requirements. I also see encouragement of States to adopt a "plan"...has Texas done so?

Do you see something more definitive?

I don't run a business where this is remotely an issue, so am fully prepared to learn about it. I did run such back in the 90's, but never had any OSHA issues...we did pay attention to forklift safety training, etc, and all sorts of other regulatory inspections but don't think I saw OSHA in 5 years running that distribution business.

What I see so far is "emphasis" which is surely a good thing in directing OSHA to pay attention to heat issues, but I don't see firm requirements or teeth.

[Brooklyn]

CONs off the rails:




https://images.dailykos.com/images/1203 ... 1687996248




Just unreal.

[Farfromgeneva]

Give….me….a….break-this is a joke of epic proportions

Republicans’ New Border Plan: Send Military Into Mexico

GOP candidates and lawmakers want to use the U.S. military to battle drug cartels

Michelle Hackman

WASHINGTON—Republicans running for president and in Congress are coalescing around a controversial way to wage war against illegal drugs—sending the U.S. military into Mexico.

Former President Donald Trump, who has previously called for building a wall along the southern border and giving drug dealers the death penalty, has also proposed creating a naval blockade of Mexico to prevent drugs like illicit fentanyl from entering the U.S. His leading opponent in the 2024 GOP nomination race, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, promised last week to use “deadly force” against anyone caught smuggling drugs across the border.

On Capitol Hill, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) and John Kennedy (R., La.) have both voiced support for military operations in Mexico. Sen. J.D. Vance (R., Ohio) said in a recent interview on NBC that cartels should be considered terrorist organizations, meriting a military response. And Reps. Dan Crenshaw (R., Texas) and Mike Waltz (R., Fla.) have sponsored a bill that would formally declare war on the cartels—meaning the military would be authorized to drop bombs on cartel targets.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

There is a simple reason the idea of a military intervention keeps cropping up—it is popular, and not just with Republicans. In an NBC poll taken in late June, sending troops to the border to stop drugs was the single best-liked of 11 GOP proposals tested with Republican primary voters. And it was the only one that gained support from a majority of all registered voters.

The poll findings reflect growing anxiety for Americans, as a continuing opioid crisis fuels record numbers of drug-overdose deaths. In many of those cases, Americans are taking other drugs they don’t realize are laced with deadly fentanyl.


Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Donald Trump’s leading opponent in the 2024 GOP nomination race, promised to use ‘deadly force’ against anyone caught smuggling drugs across the border. Photo: suzanne cordeiro/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
The rhetoric is also useful for Republican candidates eager to campaign on border and immigration policy, a topic that polls have repeatedly shown is a top concern for GOP voters but which ranks as a lower priority for most Democrats. And as illegal crossings at the border have recently plummeted following the implementation of new Biden administration immigration policies, it gives candidates something new to talk about.

“What we see in polling is a pretty big shift toward Republicans on all questions related to border security and immigration,” said Patrick Ruffini, a Republican pollster and digital strategist. “So it’s not surprising that you’re seeing Republican primary candidates up the ante.”

Doris Meissner, who served as the top immigration official under the Clinton administration, said the Republican proposals are problematic because deploying the U.S. military on domestic soil to perform law-enforcement functions is illegal, and performing military operations in Mexico without the explicit cooperation of the Mexican government would be an act of war against a sovereign country.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

“Military training and military operations are intended to kill in warlike situations. That’s not what we need here,” she said. “It’s completely rhetorical and intended to arouse.”

In a comprehensive plan to “end America’s drug addiction crisis” released last month, Trump promised to partner with companies willing to hire people formerly addicted to opioids and fund faith-based treatment programs. But the top items on his agenda involve sending the military to “inflict maximum damage” on cartel operations and pressure Mexico to cooperate, something that country’s government has repeatedly said it is unwilling to do.

Title 42, which allowed U.S. authorities to quickly expel migrants on public health grounds, expired on May 11. WSJ’s Alicia A. Caldwell explains what the policy is, its effect on the border and what comes next. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images
The Mexican Foreign Ministry didn’t respond to a request for comment.

DeSantis has for months advocated blockading legal ports of entry with Mexico, where nearly all the illicit fentanyl is thought to be smuggled in from Mexico. But in the first formal policy rollout of his campaign, DeSantis escalated that language, saying anyone caught at the border with drugs could be shot.

“You’re already on U.S. soil once you’re cutting through the wall. You have hostile intent,” DeSantis said at the Texas border last week. “You absolutely can use deadly force.…We absolutely can respond if you’re breaking into our country and sawing through a border wall.”

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

In 2019, Trump sent thousands of troops to the border to assist with a surge of asylum-seeking migrants—though the troops weren’t actually allowed to perform arrests and they didn’t cross into Mexico. Biden did the same this spring as his administration anticipated a wave of illegal migration associated with the end of Title 42, a pandemic-era border policy.

As president, Trump floated to aides the idea of shooting migrants in the legs to deter them from crossing into the U.S. illegally, according to people familiar with his thinking—though he never voiced the idea publicly.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

What is the best way to stop drugs from being smuggled across the border? Join the conversation below.

In an interview, Waltz argued there is precedent for a military antidrug operation. During the administration of President George W. Bush, the U.S. military worked with the Colombian government to train military forces to fight drug cartels there and use chemicals to prevent the cultivation of the coca plant, which was fueling the conflict in that country.

Waltz said a formal authorization of force against cartels would empower the military to surveil cartel activity using its most advanced drones and disrupt cartel supply chains.

“I push back on the reflexive, automatic reaction of Republicans want to declare war on Mexico, or we’re talking an invasion of Mexico, that’s sophomoric,” he said. “What we’re talking, it’s a much more nuanced approach.”

Asked if the U.S. should be bombing cartels, Waltz said, “That wouldn’t be the first thing I would do.”

Write to Michelle Hackman at [email protected]

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

[jhu72]

Nick Fuentes says all men want to drink the milk of a 16 year old girl. At least he says he will marry her. The mind of a republiCON, Christian conservative, white nationalist.

[CU88a]

Who in the 2xIMPOTUS o d administration is involved with these allegations?

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us ... registered

[Brooklyn]

the "mind" of a CONservative:




https://image.caglecartoons.com/276473/ ... ricans.png




https://images.dailykos.com/images/1207 ... rville.jpg

[CU88a]

July 17, 2023
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON
JUL 18




SHARE

A story in the New York Times today by Jonathan Swan, Charlie Savage, and Maggie Haberman outlined how former president Donald Trump and his allies are planning to create a dictatorship if voters return him to power in 2024. The article talks about how Trump and his loyalists plan to “centralize more power in the Oval Office” by “increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House.”

They plan to take control over independent government agencies and get rid of the nonpartisan civil service, purging all but Trump loyalists from the U.S. intelligence agencies, the State Department, and the Defense Department. They plan to start “impounding funds,” that is, ignoring programs Congress has funded if those programs aren’t in line with Trump’s policies.

“What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them,” said Russell T. Vought, who ran Trump’s Office of Management and Budget and who now advises the right-wing House Freedom Caucus. They envision a “president” who cannot be checked by the Congress or the courts.

Trump’s desire to grab the mechanics of our government and become a dictator is not new; both scholars and journalists have called it out since the early years of his administration. What is new here is the willingness of so-called establishment Republicans to support this authoritarian power grab.

Behind this initiative is “Project 2025,” a coalition of more than 65 right-wing organizations putting in place personnel and policies to recommend not just to Trump, but to any Republican who may win in 2024. Project 2025 is led by the Heritage Foundation, once considered a conservative think tank, that helped to lead the Reagan revolution.

A piece by Alexander Bolton in The Hill today said that Republican senators are “worried” by the MAGAs, but they have been notably silent in public at a time when every elected leader should be speaking out against this plot. Their silence suggests they are on board with it, as Trump apparently hoped to establish.

The party appears to have fully embraced the antidemocratic ideology advanced by authoritarian leaders like Russia’s president Vladimir Putin and Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orbán, who argue that the post–World War II era, in which democracy seemed to triumph, is over. They claim that the tenets of democracy—equality before the law, free speech, academic freedom, a market-based economy, immigration, and so on—weaken a nation by destroying a “traditional” society based in patriarchy and Christianity.

Instead of democracy, they have called for “illiberal” or “Christian” democracy, which uses the government to enforce their beliefs in a Christian, patriarchal order. What that looks like has a clear blueprint in the actions of Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who has gathered extraordinary power into his own hands in the state and used that power to mirror Orbán’s destruction of democracy.

DeSantis has pushed through laws that ban abortion after six weeks, before most people know they’re pregnant; banned classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity (the “Don’t Say Gay” law); prevented recognition of transgender individuals; made it easier to sentence someone to death; allowed people to carry guns without training or permits; banned colleges and businesses from conversations about race; exerted control over state universities; made it harder for his opponents to vote, and tried to punish Disney World for speaking out against the Don’t Say Gay law. After rounding up migrants and sending them to other states, DeSantis recently has called for using “deadly force” on migrants crossing unlawfully.

Because all the institutions of our democracy are designed to support the tenets of democracy, right-wingers claim those institutions are weaponized against them. House Republicans are running hearings designed to prove that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice are both “weaponized” against Republicans. It doesn’t matter that they don’t seem to have any evidence of bias: the very fact that those institutions support democracy mean they support a system that right-wing Republicans see as hostile.

“Our current executive branch,” Trump loyalist John McEntee, who is in charge of planning to pack the government with Trump loyalists, told the New York Times reporters, “was conceived of by liberals for the purpose of promulgating liberal policies. There is no way to make the existing structure function in a conservative manner. It’s not enough to get the personnel right. What’s necessary is a complete system overhaul.”

It has taken decades for the modern-day Republican Party to get to a place where it rejects democracy. The roots of that rejection lie all the way back in the 1930s, when Democrats under Franklin Delano Roosevelt embraced a government that regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, and promoted infrastructure. That system ushered in a period from 1933 to 1981 that economists call the “Great Compression,” when disparities of income and wealth were significantly reduced, especially after the government also began to protect civil rights.

Members of both parties embraced this modern government in this period, and Americans still like what it accomplished. But businessmen who hated regulation joined with racists who hated federal protection of civil rights and traditionalists who opposed women’s rights and set out to destroy that government.

In West Palm Beach, Florida, last weekend, at the Turning Points Action Conference, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) compared President Biden’s Build Back Better plan to President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s Great Society programs, which invested in “education, medical care, urban problems, rural poverty, transportation, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and welfare, the Office of Economic Opportunity, and big labor and labor unions.” She noted that under Biden, the U.S. has made “the largest public investment in social infrastructure and environmental programs, that is actually finishing what FDR started, that LBJ expanded on, and Joe Biden is attempting to complete.”

Well, yeah.

Greene incorrectly called this program “socialism,” which in fact means government ownership of production, as opposed to the government’s provision of benefits people cannot provide individually, a concept first put into practice in the United States by Abraham Lincoln and later expanded by leadership in both parties. The administration has stood firmly behind the idea—shared by LBJ and FDR, and also by Republicans Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower, among others—that investing in programs that enable working people to prosper is the best way to strengthen the economy.

Certainly, Greene’s speech didn’t seem to be the “gotcha” that she apparently hoped. A March 2023 poll by independent health policy pollster KFF, for example, found that 80% of Americans like Social Security, 81% like Medicare, and 76% like Medicaid, a large majority of members of all political parties.

The White House Twitter account retweeted a clip of Greene’s speech, writing: “Caught us. President Biden is working to make life easier for hardworking families.”

[cradleandshoot]

July 17, 2023
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON
JUL 18




SHARE

A story in the New York Times today by Jonathan Swan, Charlie Savage, and Maggie Haberman outlined how former president Donald Trump and his allies are planning to create a dictatorship if voters return him to power in 2024. The article talks about how Trump and his loyalists plan to “centralize more power in the Oval Office” by “increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House.”

They plan to take control over independent government agencies and get rid of the nonpartisan civil service, purging all but Trump loyalists from the U.S. intelligence agencies, the State Department, and the Defense Department. They plan to start “impounding funds,” that is, ignoring programs Congress has funded if those programs aren’t in line with Trump’s policies.

“What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them,” said Russell T. Vought, who ran Trump’s Office of Management and Budget and who now advises the right-wing House Freedom Caucus. They envision a “president” who cannot be checked by the Congress or the courts.

Trump’s desire to grab the mechanics of our government and become a dictator is not new; both scholars and journalists have called it out since the early years of his administration. What is new here is the willingness of so-called establishment Republicans to support this authoritarian power grab.

Behind this initiative is “Project 2025,” a coalition of more than 65 right-wing organizations putting in place personnel and policies to recommend not just to Trump, but to any Republican who may win in 2024. Project 2025 is led by the Heritage Foundation, once considered a conservative think tank, that helped to lead the Reagan revolution.

A piece by Alexander Bolton in The Hill today said that Republican senators are “worried” by the MAGAs, but they have been notably silent in public at a time when every elected leader should be speaking out against this plot. Their silence suggests they are on board with it, as Trump apparently hoped to establish.

The party appears to have fully embraced the antidemocratic ideology advanced by authoritarian leaders like Russia’s president Vladimir Putin and Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orbán, who argue that the post–World War II era, in which democracy seemed to triumph, is over. They claim that the tenets of democracy—equality before the law, free speech, academic freedom, a market-based economy, immigration, and so on—weaken a nation by destroying a “traditional” society based in patriarchy and Christianity.

Instead of democracy, they have called for “illiberal” or “Christian” democracy, which uses the government to enforce their beliefs in a Christian, patriarchal order. What that looks like has a clear blueprint in the actions of Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who has gathered extraordinary power into his own hands in the state and used that power to mirror Orbán’s destruction of democracy.

DeSantis has pushed through laws that ban abortion after six weeks, before most people know they’re pregnant; banned classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity (the “Don’t Say Gay” law); prevented recognition of transgender individuals; made it easier to sentence someone to death; allowed people to carry guns without training or permits; banned colleges and businesses from conversations about race; exerted control over state universities; made it harder for his opponents to vote, and tried to punish Disney World for speaking out against the Don’t Say Gay law. After rounding up migrants and sending them to other states, DeSantis recently has called for using “deadly force” on migrants crossing unlawfully.

Because all the institutions of our democracy are designed to support the tenets of democracy, right-wingers claim those institutions are weaponized against them. House Republicans are running hearings designed to prove that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice are both “weaponized” against Republicans. It doesn’t matter that they don’t seem to have any evidence of bias: the very fact that those institutions support democracy mean they support a system that right-wing Republicans see as hostile.

“Our current executive branch,” Trump loyalist John McEntee, who is in charge of planning to pack the government with Trump loyalists, told the New York Times reporters, “was conceived of by liberals for the purpose of promulgating liberal policies. There is no way to make the existing structure function in a conservative manner. It’s not enough to get the personnel right. What’s necessary is a complete system overhaul.”

It has taken decades for the modern-day Republican Party to get to a place where it rejects democracy. The roots of that rejection lie all the way back in the 1930s, when Democrats under Franklin Delano Roosevelt embraced a government that regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, and promoted infrastructure. That system ushered in a period from 1933 to 1981 that economists call the “Great Compression,” when disparities of income and wealth were significantly reduced, especially after the government also began to protect civil rights.

Members of both parties embraced this modern government in this period, and Americans still like what it accomplished. But businessmen who hated regulation joined with racists who hated federal protection of civil rights and traditionalists who opposed women’s rights and set out to destroy that government.

In West Palm Beach, Florida, last weekend, at the Turning Points Action Conference, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) compared President Biden’s Build Back Better plan to President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s Great Society programs, which invested in “education, medical care, urban problems, rural poverty, transportation, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and welfare, the Office of Economic Opportunity, and big labor and labor unions.” She noted that under Biden, the U.S. has made “the largest public investment in social infrastructure and environmental programs, that is actually finishing what FDR started, that LBJ expanded on, and Joe Biden is attempting to complete.”

Well, yeah.

Greene incorrectly called this program “socialism,” which in fact means government ownership of production, as opposed to the government’s provision of benefits people cannot provide individually, a concept first put into practice in the United States by Abraham Lincoln and later expanded by leadership in both parties. The administration has stood firmly behind the idea—shared by LBJ and FDR, and also by Republicans Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower, among others—that investing in programs that enable working people to prosper is the best way to strengthen the economy.

Certainly, Greene’s speech didn’t seem to be the “gotcha” that she apparently hoped. A March 2023 poll by independent health policy pollster KFF, for example, found that 80% of Americans like Social Security, 81% like Medicare, and 76% like Medicaid, a large majority of members of all political parties.

The White House Twitter account retweeted a clip of Greene’s speech, writing: “Caught us. President Biden is working to make life easier for hardworking families.”

I'm trying to remember the last time since I have been on this planet when life has ever been easier for hard working families. That is odd because every politician from both parties always bloviate ad nauseum about wanting to make life easier for hard working Americans. There must be some mysterious reason that objective can never be attained?