Republicans: continued

[Brian Peacock]

I would imagine dominionists identify as dominionists. I've just given you a pocket description, because you seem somewhat overly concerned about the words used to describe them rather than what they actually stand for - but don't take my word for it, feel free to do your own research.

[Cunt]

Not at all, I simply asked who identified them as such.

But I don't expect a clear answer from you, so I'll just assume you didn't have a serious point to make.

[JimC]

is 'Christofascist' what they call themselves? Or what you call them?

What do you call them, Cunt? Are you happy to be in the same bed as those who want a Christian state, or are you an AINO?

If you call someone that, it might mean you feel a certain way about them. If they self-identify as that, it means something different.

I thought self-identity was respected, so I was checking if it was worth respecting the designation.

The naming is irrelevant, it is their self-proclaimed desire for the US to become an overtly Christian (and fundamentalist Christian at that) ruled country that should be of concern. Other parts of their ideological position probably tick boxes with you, but let me make the acronym I thought might fit you very clear...

Atheist In Name Only...

[Brian Peacock]

Not at all, I simply asked who identified them as such.

But I don't expect a clear answer from you, so I'll just assume you didn't have a serious point to make.

What's unclear about "I would imagine dominionists identify as dominionists"? It's a credo after all. Rather than trying to tone police orhers - again - why not go and look up what dominionism is and what dominionists stand for, then come back and let me know if the idea of living under a Christian Caliphate is a price worth paying to own the libs.

[pErvinalia]

We've had this sort of dumb "logic" before from Cunt with the alt-right. The label is an descriptor that covers a range of behaviours. It's irrelevant if a person self-identifies as a term. The term describes their behaviours and stated beliefs.

[Cunt]

is 'Christofascist' what they call themselves? Or what you call them?

What do you call them, Cunt? Are you happy to be in the same bed as those who want a Christian state, or are you an AINO?

If you call someone that, it might mean you feel a certain way about them. If they self-identify as that, it means something different.

I thought self-identity was respected, so I was checking if it was worth respecting the designation.

The naming is irrelevant, it is their self-proclaimed desire for the US to become an overtly Christian (and fundamentalist Christian at that) ruled country that should be of concern. Other parts of their ideological position probably tick boxes with you, but let me make the acronym I thought might fit you very clear...

Atheist In Name Only...

You really are deluded.

If you call me AINO, it doesn't have me immediately bowing and scraping to a god. Justlike if you call them 'christofascist' it doesn't mean they are one.

Just that you want me to see them that way.

So i'll pass. I'm not much of a follower. Thanks for the offer, but I think I'll make up my own mind.

[Cunt]

Not at all, I simply asked who identified them as such.

But I don't expect a clear answer from you, so I'll just assume you didn't have a serious point to make.

What's unclear about "I would imagine dominionists identify as dominionists"? It's a credo after all. Rather than trying to tone police orhers - again - why not go and look up what dominionism is and what dominionists stand for, then come back and let me know if the idea of living under a Christian Caliphate is a price worth paying to own the libs.

No thanks. I was just trying to gather whether it was a self-identity, or an accusation. I understand clearly now.

[JimC]

Cunt, you are still completely and utterly ignoring the fact that a significant group of people who espouse many of the same right-wing views as you are also committed to achieving Christian rule over the US. Now, I will say that it is not something that seems to me achievable, but the fact that they publicly state their aim is a dangerous trend. Remember, this is not a critique of Christian politicians in general, just those from the US that want to flout their own 1st amendment (while no doubt holding very firm on those amendments that support their views on guns...)

It is no secret that I am always prepared to criticise elements of the left for a variety of reasons, mostly when they become dogmatic, inflexible and unrealistic. Yet a comparatively easy step for you would be to criticise some of the people on your side of the fence for their total rejection of any form of secularism.

[Brian Peacock]

Not at all, I simply asked who identified them as such.

But I don't expect a clear answer from you, so I'll just assume you didn't have a serious point to make.

What's unclear about "I would imagine dominionists identify as dominionists"? It's a credo after all. Rather than trying to tone police orhers - again - why not go and look up what dominionism is and what dominionists stand for, then come back and let me know if the idea of living under a Christian Caliphate is a price worth paying to own the libs.

No thanks. I was just trying to gather whether it was a self-identity, or an accusation. I understand clearly now.

Ha! You think 'dominionist' is a slur even though it's what they call themselves. Oh my, it's like Fascist, Alt-Right and TERF all over again.

[JimC]

Onward Christian soldiers...

[pErvinalia]

As I said, we've seen this playbook before. Be prepared to hear about non stop for the next week or two.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Pay no attention to that religious zealot behind the curtain. Really, which term is used when describing right-wing Christians who aspire to have literal dominion over all aspects of life in their gawd's own country is the important thing. Such a callous casting of aspersions as 'Christofascist' can't go unremarked.

If those one of those self-described Dominionists has been put into a vital position of power in the US government by Republicans, what of it? Dominionists with good reason believe they'll have more power if their fair-haired Cyrus gets into office again. Who's to say that isn't a good thing?

For one, they oppose with unwavering righteousness the trans people and those who support their right to live in society. Maybe they'll succeed in setting things right. The real problem here is using unvarnished language to describe those Christians who desire a dictatorial right wing Christian theocracy.

[JimC]

What I find interesting in this issue is how the pressure mounts (on all sides of politics) to accept the ideological position of the loudest speakers within a given political position. We see it on the left, where questioning certain dogmatic positions can be seen as heretical. On the right, as Cunt has evinced, there is silence when members of one's ideological fold go full fundamentalist Christian, certain that their minority religious view should be in total control of society. Stalin would have understood that perspective...

[Cunt]

What I find interesting in this issue is how the pressure mounts (on all sides of politics) to accept the ideological position of the loudest speakers within a given political position. We see it on the left, where questioning certain dogmatic positions can be seen as heretical. On the right, as Cunt has evinced, there is silence when members of one's ideological fold go full fundamentalist Christian, certain that their minority religious view should be in total control of society. Stalin would have understood that perspective...

All this from the fact that I wanted to know whether this was your label for them, or their own.

I dislike all religious fundamentalism. I don't know who you were talking about, all I know so far is how you were talking abouththem.

[Svartalf]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-12/ ... /103093812

US senator Tommy Tuberville has been accused of playing a role in a senior general's heart attack, had his actions labelled "ridiculous" by the president, and had Rolling Stone ask if he's "the most ignorant man in DC".

Even some of his Republican colleagues are publicly turning on him, accusing him of waging a "national security suicide mission".

But so far, the former college football coach is holding firm.

For nine months, the first-time Alabama senator and vocal Trump supporter has been single-handedly blocking the confirmation of military nominations and promotions.

That's leaving key positions in the navy, army and air force unfilled, and forcing some senior officers to perform multiple roles.

More than 450 positions are on hold as a result of Senator Tuberville's protest.

But his hold on the appointments apparently has nothing to do with his objection to any individual's advancement through the ranks. In fact, he says they are all worthy of promotion.

It's a protest against a Pentagon abortion policy.

China and Russia are rubbing their hands with glee, of course...

I sometimes wonder whether the US has some sort of national suicide tendency...

Not the nation at large, just the religious loons