News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I think weed is probably a pretty divisive issue in the party. I love in Oregon and know a ton of die-hard, Trump lovin' Republicans who love weed and have long before it was legalized. I think it's mostly the religious fundamentalists in the south and places like Utah/Idaho who oppose it while the rest probably don't care at this point.
The Tea Party rode their way up on the coattails of classic Libertarians. The basically want to legalize everything from smoking weed to killing gays and owning people. "Freedom"
When it looks like Republicans are confused and cannibalizing themselves, it's because of the bloc that married Trump.
At this point it's probably helpful to appreciate that the only reason weed is federally illegal is that the Nixon administration needed a pretext to expand the police state so that it could go after the antiwar left and brown people.
Since then, having drugs like weed be illegal gives cops discretion to target 'likely suspects', which basically can mean 'brown people' and anyone they don't like the look of
Yes
No
The Tea Party has been rabidly anti-LGBTQ and historically pro-Confederate-Identity.
Yeah, there was a little hyperbole there. But not by very much.
The people that say stuff like that are probably 16 years old and didn't actually observe the Tea Party movement as it occurred. They only know what the social media comments tell them to think about it. It was basically a "tired of gov't bullshit" movement that wanted taxes lowered and freedom increased.
I'm wondering why we're even currently talking about an organization that was only relevant for like two years thirteen years ago.
I knew insiders in the early Tea movement (not leaders, but those with contact with them). They largely combined a few members of the ultra-wealthy with some of the fringe Libertarian elements. The whole goal was about manipulating politics for profit while giving one of the Third Parties with a lot of potential "a way in".
Deep down inside, I think some of the early Tea folks thought it would be a fair deal if they got richer by negotiating a deal between the Chomskys and the Pauls since deep down they wanted a lot of the same things.
But that wasn't enough. Chomsky and Paul didn't buy a majority when the Republicans were getting sick of Chomsky and Libertarians were getting sick of Paul. So they had to find another marginalized group that was "tired of gov't bullshit". The problem is, that marginalized group was the secular extremist. Proud Boys, KKK, UDC, etc.
No. I'm not 16. I was in college when Libertarians hit their early ceiling. The Libertarians were "tired of gov't bullshit". And I didn't like them, but I could look them in the eye and respect them. But Tea was never Libertarian. That's what they want you to think. Classic Libertarians would never support "States Rights" like Tea. You know why? They were "tired of gov't bullshit".
To be CRYSTAL clear. The Tea Party has always been reactionary and populist. Neither of those things jive with "tired of gov't bullshit".
Per Pew. 64% of Tea party members oppose gay marriage (they couch it as government growth, but they don't actually support dismantling CIS marriage or deregulating the things that gay marriage legally solves). 59% of Tea Party members support a federal ban on abortion (small gov't, YUP). 51% of Tea Party members want stronger border security. Members of Tea or Christian Conservative parties only disagree between 5% and 10% of the time.
The Tea Party never really had anything to do with being "tired of gov't bullshit".
And if I can say all that at "16 year old", boy wait till I hit 40...
NOTE: Yes I was exaggerating on slavery position. I've only seen one or two members of Tea defend it actively, but boy did they passively defend Confederate Identity for years.
You wrote all that to just be wrong, what a waste of time. Is it not common knowledge that TEA in Tea Party was commonly used as an acronym for Taxed Enough Already? That and a number of their other stances were just like I said they were.
I met members of the Tea Party too when they were active in my area. They told me what they were in it for, and what they told me is as I described. So I said "Cool, man, keep it up."
It is not common knowledge, because I'd never heard that until just now. Seems like a backronym to me, and the name "tea party" references the anti-tax event in 1773.
Oh look, you drew a picture where you're a Chad and I look stupid. You win.
Of course that's common knowledge. And it fits all-in with what I'm explaining. But it's also perfectly-tuned to be palatable by the mainstream Republican. That's why the old discussion between Libertarian and Tea that slowly turned into one part of the Libertarian side "melding" with it and the other absolutely hating it.... And then Left-Libertarianism slowly collapsed into a shell of what it used to be. And Right-Libertarianism just isn't what it used to be.
Members or leadership? Tea is like Pro-Life. The members are preaching a very different thing (many very different things) than the leaders. There are established anti-tax groups in the GOP. When you can join two anti-tax groups, one with white hoods and one without them, taxes might not be your issuse.
So they told you they were actually Rank and File moderate anti-tax Republicans and you believed them? So why be part of a fringe group that's endorsed by extremists if all you want is just what Noem wanted? He didn't need the KKK to back his message. He didn't need to go all-in anti-abortion or all-in anti-homosexuality.
And interestingly, I cited evidence of the "not in any way related to tax" part, and you kinda brushed that aside like it doesn't matter that Tea is primarily different from the GOP in extremism on non-tax-related issues. And the KKK endorsement.
EDIT: Just a thought. Maybe "I also talked to a couple members of the Tea party" isn't sufficient evidence to belittle an interlocutor and call them a 16 year older? One thing I'm not is ignorant about this topic. There may be a middleground whjere we can agree to disagree on things, but an idiot I am not. And you only make yourself look like one when you treat people that way.
EDIT2: Have a reference. Here's a book I found by a well-respected Professor explaining the Tea Party's KKK-like roots, concluding in part that racism is foundational to their ideologies.
EDIT3: This reference is innocent on its own, but repeats the Billionaires part of my description.
EDIT4: (this one is a gamble, since you'll really show true colors if you reject it), the NAACP reference page on the Tea Party with regards to racism. Kinda all on-board with what I've been saying.
So...are college professors, researchers, and the NAACP all 16 years old?
I have some high school classmates who grew up in Oregon in the seventies and eighties. As I understand things, weed is a long standing culture in Oregon that was more or less openly tolerated to grow your own back in the day. Present day situation doesn't surprise me at all.