#mccarthyism — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #mccarthyism, aggregated by home.social.
-
Cuban president denounces latest US sanctions
Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel claimed that transnational far-right alliances are being promoted in ways that ‘recall Hitlerite fascism’.…
#Conflict #Conflicts #War #blockade #Cuba #farleft #farright #fascism #mccarthyism #MiguelDíaz-Canel
https://www.europesays.com/3138035/ -
https://www.europesays.com/people/152067/ Trump twists ‘communist’ label in Red Scare attacks on Democrats #ColdWar #Communism #DemocraticSocialism #DemocraticSocialistsOfAmerica #DonaldTrump #McCarthyism #RedScare #RoyCohn #SovietUnion #Trump #USSR
-
Happy birthday USA! Welcome to 1950s McCarthyism. It was evil and vindictice and stupid then, even more so now. This vile 47th POTUS needs to go.
#july4th #USPolitics #USPol #TraitorMAGA #TraitorGOP #mccarthyism #impeach #liar #criminal #POTUS
-
Happy birthday USA! Welcome to 1950s McCarthyism. It was evil and vindictice and stupid then, even more so now. This vile 47th POTUS needs to go.
#july4th #USPolitics #USPol #TraitorMAGA #TraitorGOP #mccarthyism #impeach #liar #criminal #POTUS
-
Happy birthday USA! Welcome to 1950s McCarthyism. It was evil and vindictice and stupid then, even more so now. This vile 47th POTUS needs to go.
#july4th #USPolitics #USPol #TraitorMAGA #TraitorGOP #mccarthyism #impeach #liar #criminal #POTUS
-
Happy birthday USA! Welcome to 1950s McCarthyism. It was evil and vindictice and stupid then, even more so now. This vile 47th POTUS needs to go.
#july4th #USPolitics #USPol #TraitorMAGA #TraitorGOP #mccarthyism #impeach #liar #criminal #POTUS
-
Happy birthday USA! Welcome to 1950s McCarthyism. It was evil and vindictice and stupid then, even more so now. This vile 47th POTUS needs to go.
#july4th #USPolitics #USPol #TraitorMAGA #TraitorGOP #mccarthyism #impeach #liar #criminal #POTUS
-
The Language of Enemies
President Donald Trump has once again reached for one of the oldest political tools in history: the creation of an internal enemy. In a recent Truth Social post, he declared, “The Communists are finally making their move… I’ve been waiting and preparing for this for a long time… The game is on. Enjoy watching.” The statement followed Democratic primary victories by candidates associated with the democratic socialist wing of the Democratic Party. While it does not announce a specific government action, it should give Americans pause. The words themselves matter.
The United States has a long history of anti-communist politics. During the Cold War, concerns about espionage by the Soviet Union were real. But there is a significant difference between opposing a foreign adversary and using the label “communist” as a catch-all description for domestic political opponents.
History teaches that when governments begin describing fellow citizens as existential enemies rather than political rivals, civil liberties often become casualties.
That does not mean arrests are imminent. It does not mean martial law is around the corner. It does mean Americans should pay attention whenever a president suggests he has been “preparing” for a confrontation with a vaguely defined group of people inside the country. Without clear definitions, almost anyone can be placed into that category.
Who, exactly, is a communist?
Is it a registered member of a revolutionary Marxist party?
Someone who favors universal health care?
A labor organizer?
A college professor?
A Democratic Socialist?
A journalist critical of the administration?
The danger lies in the ambiguity. Labels become flexible enough to fit whatever target is politically convenient.
The United States has experienced this before. During the era commonly known as the Red Scare, accusations alone destroyed careers, reputations, and lives. Loyalty tests replaced evidence. Suspicion replaced due process. The nation eventually looked back on that period as one of fear rather than strength.
That history is worth remembering.
Presidents possess extraordinary influence over public opinion. Their words shape not only political debate but also the priorities of federal agencies, law enforcement, and supporters. Even when no immediate policy follows, repeated rhetoric can normalize the idea that political disagreement is not simply disagreement but evidence of disloyalty.
Democracy depends upon the opposite principle.
It assumes citizens will disagree—sometimes passionately—about taxes, foreign policy, immigration, labor rights, social welfare, and the role of government. Those disagreements are resolved through elections, courts, legislation, and public debate, not by portraying one side as an enemy to be defeated by extraordinary means.
There is another concern as well.
Throughout history, leaders facing political challenges have often found it useful to redefine elections as battles for national survival. Once politics becomes an existential struggle between patriots and enemies, compromise becomes betrayal and constitutional restraints begin to look like obstacles rather than safeguards.
That is not unique to one ideology or one nation. It has happened under governments of many different political stripes.
Americans should therefore resist the temptation to dismiss language like this as merely another social media post. Words are often the first step in preparing the public for future actions, even if those actions never materialize. Responsible citizens should neither panic nor ignore them.
The proper response is vigilance.
Ask questions.
Demand definitions.
Insist that accusations be supported by evidence rather than slogans.
And remember that the Constitution protects Americans because of their rights—not because of their politics.
Whether one supports Donald Trump, opposes him, or falls somewhere in between, the principle remains the same. A free republic is strongest when political opponents remain opponents—not enemies.
#CivilLiberties #Democracy #donaldTrump #McCarthyism #politicalRhetoric #TruthSocial #WPSNews -
The Language of Enemies
President Donald Trump has once again reached for one of the oldest political tools in history: the creation of an internal enemy. In a recent Truth Social post, he declared, “The Communists are finally making their move… I’ve been waiting and preparing for this for a long time… The game is on. Enjoy watching.” The statement followed Democratic primary victories by candidates associated with the democratic socialist wing of the Democratic Party. While it does not announce a specific government action, it should give Americans pause. The words themselves matter.
The United States has a long history of anti-communist politics. During the Cold War, concerns about espionage by the Soviet Union were real. But there is a significant difference between opposing a foreign adversary and using the label “communist” as a catch-all description for domestic political opponents.
History teaches that when governments begin describing fellow citizens as existential enemies rather than political rivals, civil liberties often become casualties.
That does not mean arrests are imminent. It does not mean martial law is around the corner. It does mean Americans should pay attention whenever a president suggests he has been “preparing” for a confrontation with a vaguely defined group of people inside the country. Without clear definitions, almost anyone can be placed into that category.
Who, exactly, is a communist?
Is it a registered member of a revolutionary Marxist party?
Someone who favors universal health care?
A labor organizer?
A college professor?
A Democratic Socialist?
A journalist critical of the administration?
The danger lies in the ambiguity. Labels become flexible enough to fit whatever target is politically convenient.
The United States has experienced this before. During the era commonly known as the Red Scare, accusations alone destroyed careers, reputations, and lives. Loyalty tests replaced evidence. Suspicion replaced due process. The nation eventually looked back on that period as one of fear rather than strength.
That history is worth remembering.
Presidents possess extraordinary influence over public opinion. Their words shape not only political debate but also the priorities of federal agencies, law enforcement, and supporters. Even when no immediate policy follows, repeated rhetoric can normalize the idea that political disagreement is not simply disagreement but evidence of disloyalty.
Democracy depends upon the opposite principle.
It assumes citizens will disagree—sometimes passionately—about taxes, foreign policy, immigration, labor rights, social welfare, and the role of government. Those disagreements are resolved through elections, courts, legislation, and public debate, not by portraying one side as an enemy to be defeated by extraordinary means.
There is another concern as well.
Throughout history, leaders facing political challenges have often found it useful to redefine elections as battles for national survival. Once politics becomes an existential struggle between patriots and enemies, compromise becomes betrayal and constitutional restraints begin to look like obstacles rather than safeguards.
That is not unique to one ideology or one nation. It has happened under governments of many different political stripes.
Americans should therefore resist the temptation to dismiss language like this as merely another social media post. Words are often the first step in preparing the public for future actions, even if those actions never materialize. Responsible citizens should neither panic nor ignore them.
The proper response is vigilance.
Ask questions.
Demand definitions.
Insist that accusations be supported by evidence rather than slogans.
And remember that the Constitution protects Americans because of their rights—not because of their politics.
Whether one supports Donald Trump, opposes him, or falls somewhere in between, the principle remains the same. A free republic is strongest when political opponents remain opponents—not enemies.
#CivilLiberties #Democracy #donaldTrump #McCarthyism #politicalRhetoric #TruthSocial #WPSNews -
The Language of Enemies
President Donald Trump has once again reached for one of the oldest political tools in history: the creation of an internal enemy. In a recent Truth Social post, he declared, “The Communists are finally making their move… I’ve been waiting and preparing for this for a long time… The game is on. Enjoy watching.” The statement followed Democratic primary victories by candidates associated with the democratic socialist wing of the Democratic Party. While it does not announce a specific government action, it should give Americans pause. The words themselves matter.
The United States has a long history of anti-communist politics. During the Cold War, concerns about espionage by the Soviet Union were real. But there is a significant difference between opposing a foreign adversary and using the label “communist” as a catch-all description for domestic political opponents.
History teaches that when governments begin describing fellow citizens as existential enemies rather than political rivals, civil liberties often become casualties.
That does not mean arrests are imminent. It does not mean martial law is around the corner. It does mean Americans should pay attention whenever a president suggests he has been “preparing” for a confrontation with a vaguely defined group of people inside the country. Without clear definitions, almost anyone can be placed into that category.
Who, exactly, is a communist?
Is it a registered member of a revolutionary Marxist party?
Someone who favors universal health care?
A labor organizer?
A college professor?
A Democratic Socialist?
A journalist critical of the administration?
The danger lies in the ambiguity. Labels become flexible enough to fit whatever target is politically convenient.
The United States has experienced this before. During the era commonly known as the Red Scare, accusations alone destroyed careers, reputations, and lives. Loyalty tests replaced evidence. Suspicion replaced due process. The nation eventually looked back on that period as one of fear rather than strength.
That history is worth remembering.
Presidents possess extraordinary influence over public opinion. Their words shape not only political debate but also the priorities of federal agencies, law enforcement, and supporters. Even when no immediate policy follows, repeated rhetoric can normalize the idea that political disagreement is not simply disagreement but evidence of disloyalty.
Democracy depends upon the opposite principle.
It assumes citizens will disagree—sometimes passionately—about taxes, foreign policy, immigration, labor rights, social welfare, and the role of government. Those disagreements are resolved through elections, courts, legislation, and public debate, not by portraying one side as an enemy to be defeated by extraordinary means.
There is another concern as well.
Throughout history, leaders facing political challenges have often found it useful to redefine elections as battles for national survival. Once politics becomes an existential struggle between patriots and enemies, compromise becomes betrayal and constitutional restraints begin to look like obstacles rather than safeguards.
That is not unique to one ideology or one nation. It has happened under governments of many different political stripes.
Americans should therefore resist the temptation to dismiss language like this as merely another social media post. Words are often the first step in preparing the public for future actions, even if those actions never materialize. Responsible citizens should neither panic nor ignore them.
The proper response is vigilance.
Ask questions.
Demand definitions.
Insist that accusations be supported by evidence rather than slogans.
And remember that the Constitution protects Americans because of their rights—not because of their politics.
Whether one supports Donald Trump, opposes him, or falls somewhere in between, the principle remains the same. A free republic is strongest when political opponents remain opponents—not enemies.
#CivilLiberties #Democracy #donaldTrump #McCarthyism #politicalRhetoric #TruthSocial #WPSNews -
The Language of Enemies
President Donald Trump has once again reached for one of the oldest political tools in history: the creation of an internal enemy. In a recent Truth Social post, he declared, “The Communists are finally making their move… I’ve been waiting and preparing for this for a long time… The game is on. Enjoy watching.” The statement followed Democratic primary victories by candidates associated with the democratic socialist wing of the Democratic Party. While it does not announce a specific government action, it should give Americans pause. The words themselves matter.
The United States has a long history of anti-communist politics. During the Cold War, concerns about espionage by the Soviet Union were real. But there is a significant difference between opposing a foreign adversary and using the label “communist” as a catch-all description for domestic political opponents.
History teaches that when governments begin describing fellow citizens as existential enemies rather than political rivals, civil liberties often become casualties.
That does not mean arrests are imminent. It does not mean martial law is around the corner. It does mean Americans should pay attention whenever a president suggests he has been “preparing” for a confrontation with a vaguely defined group of people inside the country. Without clear definitions, almost anyone can be placed into that category.
Who, exactly, is a communist?
Is it a registered member of a revolutionary Marxist party?
Someone who favors universal health care?
A labor organizer?
A college professor?
A Democratic Socialist?
A journalist critical of the administration?
The danger lies in the ambiguity. Labels become flexible enough to fit whatever target is politically convenient.
The United States has experienced this before. During the era commonly known as the Red Scare, accusations alone destroyed careers, reputations, and lives. Loyalty tests replaced evidence. Suspicion replaced due process. The nation eventually looked back on that period as one of fear rather than strength.
That history is worth remembering.
Presidents possess extraordinary influence over public opinion. Their words shape not only political debate but also the priorities of federal agencies, law enforcement, and supporters. Even when no immediate policy follows, repeated rhetoric can normalize the idea that political disagreement is not simply disagreement but evidence of disloyalty.
Democracy depends upon the opposite principle.
It assumes citizens will disagree—sometimes passionately—about taxes, foreign policy, immigration, labor rights, social welfare, and the role of government. Those disagreements are resolved through elections, courts, legislation, and public debate, not by portraying one side as an enemy to be defeated by extraordinary means.
There is another concern as well.
Throughout history, leaders facing political challenges have often found it useful to redefine elections as battles for national survival. Once politics becomes an existential struggle between patriots and enemies, compromise becomes betrayal and constitutional restraints begin to look like obstacles rather than safeguards.
That is not unique to one ideology or one nation. It has happened under governments of many different political stripes.
Americans should therefore resist the temptation to dismiss language like this as merely another social media post. Words are often the first step in preparing the public for future actions, even if those actions never materialize. Responsible citizens should neither panic nor ignore them.
The proper response is vigilance.
Ask questions.
Demand definitions.
Insist that accusations be supported by evidence rather than slogans.
And remember that the Constitution protects Americans because of their rights—not because of their politics.
Whether one supports Donald Trump, opposes him, or falls somewhere in between, the principle remains the same. A free republic is strongest when political opponents remain opponents—not enemies.
#CivilLiberties #Democracy #donaldTrump #McCarthyism #politicalRhetoric #TruthSocial #WPSNews -
The Language of Enemies
President Donald Trump has once again reached for one of the oldest political tools in history: the creation of an internal enemy. In a recent Truth Social post, he declared, “The Communists are finally making their move… I’ve been waiting and preparing for this for a long time… The game is on. Enjoy watching.” The statement followed Democratic primary victories by candidates associated with the democratic socialist wing of the Democratic Party. While it does not announce a specific government action, it should give Americans pause. The words themselves matter.
The United States has a long history of anti-communist politics. During the Cold War, concerns about espionage by the Soviet Union were real. But there is a significant difference between opposing a foreign adversary and using the label “communist” as a catch-all description for domestic political opponents.
History teaches that when governments begin describing fellow citizens as existential enemies rather than political rivals, civil liberties often become casualties.
That does not mean arrests are imminent. It does not mean martial law is around the corner. It does mean Americans should pay attention whenever a president suggests he has been “preparing” for a confrontation with a vaguely defined group of people inside the country. Without clear definitions, almost anyone can be placed into that category.
Who, exactly, is a communist?
Is it a registered member of a revolutionary Marxist party?
Someone who favors universal health care?
A labor organizer?
A college professor?
A Democratic Socialist?
A journalist critical of the administration?
The danger lies in the ambiguity. Labels become flexible enough to fit whatever target is politically convenient.
The United States has experienced this before. During the era commonly known as the Red Scare, accusations alone destroyed careers, reputations, and lives. Loyalty tests replaced evidence. Suspicion replaced due process. The nation eventually looked back on that period as one of fear rather than strength.
That history is worth remembering.
Presidents possess extraordinary influence over public opinion. Their words shape not only political debate but also the priorities of federal agencies, law enforcement, and supporters. Even when no immediate policy follows, repeated rhetoric can normalize the idea that political disagreement is not simply disagreement but evidence of disloyalty.
Democracy depends upon the opposite principle.
It assumes citizens will disagree—sometimes passionately—about taxes, foreign policy, immigration, labor rights, social welfare, and the role of government. Those disagreements are resolved through elections, courts, legislation, and public debate, not by portraying one side as an enemy to be defeated by extraordinary means.
There is another concern as well.
Throughout history, leaders facing political challenges have often found it useful to redefine elections as battles for national survival. Once politics becomes an existential struggle between patriots and enemies, compromise becomes betrayal and constitutional restraints begin to look like obstacles rather than safeguards.
That is not unique to one ideology or one nation. It has happened under governments of many different political stripes.
Americans should therefore resist the temptation to dismiss language like this as merely another social media post. Words are often the first step in preparing the public for future actions, even if those actions never materialize. Responsible citizens should neither panic nor ignore them.
The proper response is vigilance.
Ask questions.
Demand definitions.
Insist that accusations be supported by evidence rather than slogans.
And remember that the Constitution protects Americans because of their rights—not because of their politics.
Whether one supports Donald Trump, opposes him, or falls somewhere in between, the principle remains the same. A free republic is strongest when political opponents remain opponents—not enemies.
#CivilLiberties #Democracy #donaldTrump #McCarthyism #politicalRhetoric #TruthSocial #WPSNews -
“The Invasion of the Body-Snatchers: Trump Whistles an Old Tune”
by Jon Bloomfield and David Edgar in The Byline Times on Substack
@uk_politics
@[email protected]
@[email protected]“The White House ‘They Walk Among Us’ video is a satirical cartoon, echoing the tropes of a time when the infiltrators were linguistically and facially indistinguishable from the general population. But, directed at migrants today, it serves the same purpose as the McCarthyite rhetoric of the 1940s and 1950s. Both seek to dehumanise alleged enemies within by claiming that, despite how they looked, acted and behaved, they were not really people at all”
https://open.substack.com/pub/bylinetimes/p/the-invasion-of-the-body-snatchers
#Press #SocialMedia #US #UK #McCarthyism #Powell #Racism #FarRight #Hitler #Nazism #Jews #Aliens #WhiteSupremacy #GreatReplacement #Thatcher #Farage #Trump #DogWhistle #ReformUK #Goodwin #Hungary #Orban #Soros
-
“The Invasion of the Body-Snatchers: Trump Whistles an Old Tune”
by Jon Bloomfield and David Edgar in The Byline Times on Substack
@uk_politics
@[email protected]
@[email protected]“The White House ‘They Walk Among Us’ video is a satirical cartoon, echoing the tropes of a time when the infiltrators were linguistically and facially indistinguishable from the general population. But, directed at migrants today, it serves the same purpose as the McCarthyite rhetoric of the 1940s and 1950s. Both seek to dehumanise alleged enemies within by claiming that, despite how they looked, acted and behaved, they were not really people at all”
https://open.substack.com/pub/bylinetimes/p/the-invasion-of-the-body-snatchers
#Press #SocialMedia #US #UK #McCarthyism #Powell #Racism #FarRight #Hitler #Nazism #Jews #Aliens #WhiteSupremacy #GreatReplacement #Thatcher #Farage #Trump #DogWhistle #ReformUK #Goodwin #Hungary #Orban #Soros
-
“The Invasion of the Body-Snatchers: Trump Whistles an Old Tune”
by Jon Bloomfield and David Edgar in The Byline Times on Substack
@uk_politics
@[email protected]
@[email protected]“The White House ‘They Walk Among Us’ video is a satirical cartoon, echoing the tropes of a time when the infiltrators were linguistically and facially indistinguishable from the general population. But, directed at migrants today, it serves the same purpose as the McCarthyite rhetoric of the 1940s and 1950s. Both seek to dehumanise alleged enemies within by claiming that, despite how they looked, acted and behaved, they were not really people at all”
https://open.substack.com/pub/bylinetimes/p/the-invasion-of-the-body-snatchers
#Press #SocialMedia #US #UK #McCarthyism #Powell #Racism #FarRight #Hitler #Nazism #Jews #Aliens #WhiteSupremacy #GreatReplacement #Thatcher #Farage #Trump #DogWhistle #ReformUK #Goodwin #Hungary #Orban #Soros
-
“The Invasion of the Body-Snatchers: Trump Whistles an Old Tune”
by Jon Bloomfield and David Edgar in The Byline Times on Substack
@uk_politics
@[email protected]
@[email protected]“The White House ‘They Walk Among Us’ video is a satirical cartoon, echoing the tropes of a time when the infiltrators were linguistically and facially indistinguishable from the general population. But, directed at migrants today, it serves the same purpose as the McCarthyite rhetoric of the 1940s and 1950s. Both seek to dehumanise alleged enemies within by claiming that, despite how they looked, acted and behaved, they were not really people at all”
https://open.substack.com/pub/bylinetimes/p/the-invasion-of-the-body-snatchers
#Press #SocialMedia #US #UK #McCarthyism #Powell #Racism #FarRight #Hitler #Nazism #Jews #Aliens #WhiteSupremacy #GreatReplacement #Thatcher #Farage #Trump #DogWhistle #ReformUK #Goodwin #Hungary #Orban #Soros
-
“The Invasion of the Body-Snatchers: Trump Whistles an Old Tune”
by Jon Bloomfield and David Edgar in The Byline Times on Substack
@uk_politics
@[email protected]
@[email protected]“The White House ‘They Walk Among Us’ video is a satirical cartoon, echoing the tropes of a time when the infiltrators were linguistically and facially indistinguishable from the general population. But, directed at migrants today, it serves the same purpose as the McCarthyite rhetoric of the 1940s and 1950s. Both seek to dehumanise alleged enemies within by claiming that, despite how they looked, acted and behaved, they were not really people at all”
https://open.substack.com/pub/bylinetimes/p/the-invasion-of-the-body-snatchers
#Press #SocialMedia #US #UK #McCarthyism #Powell #Racism #FarRight #Hitler #Nazism #Jews #Aliens #WhiteSupremacy #GreatReplacement #Thatcher #Farage #Trump #DogWhistle #ReformUK #Goodwin #Hungary #Orban #Soros
-
Nixon's enemies list had to be subpoenaed. Trump's is at https://www.whitehouse.gov/mediabias/?cst with a newsletter signup and query_47 in the URL.
It includes AP, Reuters, BBC, the Pulitzer Board, Fox News, Google, the cardiologist who kept Dick Cheney's heart beating, and a YouTuber with 3.5 mil subscribers.
7 pages of entries total.
The Nixon moment already happened with this admin, the algorithm buried it.
#McCarthyism #Trump #FirstAmendment #Technofascism #Politics #Democracy #EnemiesList #fascism -
Nixon's enemies list had to be subpoenaed. Trump's is at whitehouse.gov/mediabias with a newsletter signup and query_47 in the URL.
It includes the AP, Reuters, BBC, the Pulitzer Board, Fox News, Google, the cardiologist who kept Dick Cheney's heart beating, and a YouTuber with 3.5M subscribers. 7 pages of entries.
The Nixon moment already happened. Your algorithm buried it.
#McCarthyism #Trumpism #PressFreedom #FirstAmendment #Technofascism #USPolitics #Democracy #EnemiesList -
McCarthyism & Trumpism
The USA was set up for Trump 2.0 to take care of all his friends.
https://tiereddemocraticgovernance.org/blog_details.php?blog_cat_id=21&id=472
-
McCarthyism & Trumpism
The USA was set up for Trump 2.0 to take care of all his friends.
https://tiereddemocraticgovernance.org/blog_details.php?blog_cat_id=21&id=472
-
McCarthyism & Trumpism
The USA was set up for Trump 2.0 to take care of all his friends.
https://tiereddemocraticgovernance.org/blog_details.php?blog_cat_id=21&id=472
-
McCarthyism & Trumpism
The USA was set up for Trump 2.0 to take care of all his friends.
https://tiereddemocraticgovernance.org/blog_details.php?blog_cat_id=21&id=472
-
McCarthyism & Trumpism
The USA was set up for Trump 2.0 to take care of all his friends.
https://tiereddemocraticgovernance.org/blog_details.php?blog_cat_id=21&id=472
-
McCarthyism & Trumpism
Fortunately, the Republicans did not go in the direction of "helping" rank-and-file Republicans:
https://tiereddemocraticgovernance.org/blog_details.php?blog_cat_id=21&id=472
-
McCarthyism & Trumpism
Fortunately, the Republicans did not go in the direction of "helping" rank-and-file Republicans:
https://tiereddemocraticgovernance.org/blog_details.php?blog_cat_id=21&id=472
-
McCarthyism & Trumpism
Fortunately, the Republicans did not go in the direction of "helping" rank-and-file Republicans:
https://tiereddemocraticgovernance.org/blog_details.php?blog_cat_id=21&id=472
-
McCarthyism & Trumpism
Fortunately, the Republicans did not go in the direction of "helping" rank-and-file Republicans:
https://tiereddemocraticgovernance.org/blog_details.php?blog_cat_id=21&id=472
-
McCarthyism & Trumpism
Fortunately, the Republicans did not go in the direction of "helping" rank-and-file Republicans:
https://tiereddemocraticgovernance.org/blog_details.php?blog_cat_id=21&id=472
-
#LauraLoomer, gadfly & #Trump favorite, told…Michael Scherer in an interview…that “we need to make McCarthy great again.” And she told The New Yorker that McCarthy is “one of the most underrated & underappreciated political figures in history.” #JackPosobiec, a prominent #FarRight influencer & #ConspiracyTheorist, has posted that “McCarthy didn’t go far enough.” #SteveBannon, in a recent phone conversation with Breland, put it even more starkly: “We need to do #McCarthyism to the tenth power.”
-
#LauraLoomer, gadfly & #Trump favorite, told…Michael Scherer in an interview…that “we need to make McCarthy great again.” And she told The New Yorker that McCarthy is “one of the most underrated & underappreciated political figures in history.” #JackPosobiec, a prominent #FarRight influencer & #ConspiracyTheorist, has posted that “McCarthy didn’t go far enough.” #SteveBannon, in a recent phone conversation with Breland, put it even more starkly: “We need to do #McCarthyism to the tenth power.”
-
#LauraLoomer, gadfly & #Trump favorite, told…Michael Scherer in an interview…that “we need to make McCarthy great again.” And she told The New Yorker that McCarthy is “one of the most underrated & underappreciated political figures in history.” #JackPosobiec, a prominent #FarRight influencer & #ConspiracyTheorist, has posted that “McCarthy didn’t go far enough.” #SteveBannon, in a recent phone conversation with Breland, put it even more starkly: “We need to do #McCarthyism to the tenth power.”
-
#LauraLoomer, gadfly & #Trump favorite, told…Michael Scherer in an interview…that “we need to make McCarthy great again.” And she told The New Yorker that McCarthy is “one of the most underrated & underappreciated political figures in history.” #JackPosobiec, a prominent #FarRight influencer & #ConspiracyTheorist, has posted that “McCarthy didn’t go far enough.” #SteveBannon, in a recent phone conversation with Breland, put it even more starkly: “We need to do #McCarthyism to the tenth power.”
-
#LauraLoomer, gadfly & #Trump favorite, told…Michael Scherer in an interview…that “we need to make McCarthy great again.” And she told The New Yorker that McCarthy is “one of the most underrated & underappreciated political figures in history.” #JackPosobiec, a prominent #FarRight influencer & #ConspiracyTheorist, has posted that “McCarthy didn’t go far enough.” #SteveBannon, in a recent phone conversation with Breland, put it even more starkly: “We need to do #McCarthyism to the tenth power.”
-
(The tide of public opinion turned against McCarthy when he was challenged by the U.S. Army’s chief counsel Joseph Welch with the famous question “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”—a rocket at the time that by today’s standards of political discourse could be considered something of a softball.)
#McCarthyism #Republicans #GOP #FarRight #WhiteChristianNationalism #extremism #radicalization #USpol
-
(The tide of public opinion turned against McCarthy when he was challenged by the U.S. Army’s chief counsel Joseph Welch with the famous question “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”—a rocket at the time that by today’s standards of political discourse could be considered something of a softball.)
#McCarthyism #Republicans #GOP #FarRight #WhiteChristianNationalism #extremism #radicalization #USpol
-
(The tide of public opinion turned against McCarthy when he was challenged by the U.S. Army’s chief counsel Joseph Welch with the famous question “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”—a rocket at the time that by today’s standards of political discourse could be considered something of a softball.)
#McCarthyism #Republicans #GOP #FarRight #WhiteChristianNationalism #extremism #radicalization #USpol
-
(The tide of public opinion turned against McCarthy when he was challenged by the U.S. Army’s chief counsel Joseph Welch with the famous question “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”—a rocket at the time that by today’s standards of political discourse could be considered something of a softball.)
#McCarthyism #Republicans #GOP #FarRight #WhiteChristianNationalism #extremism #radicalization #USpol
-
(The tide of public opinion turned against McCarthy when he was challenged by the U.S. Army’s chief counsel Joseph Welch with the famous question “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”—a rocket at the time that by today’s standards of political discourse could be considered something of a softball.)
#McCarthyism #Republicans #GOP #FarRight #WhiteChristianNationalism #extremism #radicalization #USpol
-
But now comes a small, influential group of hard-line right-wingers who believe that, in the words of one popular meme in such circles, “McCarthy was right”.
…The case for McCarthy’s rehabilitation centers on the contention that the senator has been unfairly maligned & was correct in his choices of both his enemies & his tactics—& that, if anything, he didn’t go far enough, limited as he was by the relative decorum of the times.
-
But now comes a small, influential group of hard-line right-wingers who believe that, in the words of one popular meme in such circles, “McCarthy was right”.
…The case for McCarthy’s rehabilitation centers on the contention that the senator has been unfairly maligned & was correct in his choices of both his enemies & his tactics—& that, if anything, he didn’t go far enough, limited as he was by the relative decorum of the times.
-
But now comes a small, influential group of hard-line right-wingers who believe that, in the words of one popular meme in such circles, “McCarthy was right”.
…The case for McCarthy’s rehabilitation centers on the contention that the senator has been unfairly maligned & was correct in his choices of both his enemies & his tactics—& that, if anything, he didn’t go far enough, limited as he was by the relative decorum of the times.
-
But now comes a small, influential group of hard-line right-wingers who believe that, in the words of one popular meme in such circles, “McCarthy was right”.
…The case for McCarthy’s rehabilitation centers on the contention that the senator has been unfairly maligned & was correct in his choices of both his enemies & his tactics—& that, if anything, he didn’t go far enough, limited as he was by the relative decorum of the times.
-
But now comes a small, influential group of hard-line right-wingers who believe that, in the words of one popular meme in such circles, “McCarthy was right”.
…The case for McCarthy’s rehabilitation centers on the contention that the senator has been unfairly maligned & was correct in his choices of both his enemies & his tactics—& that, if anything, he didn’t go far enough, limited as he was by the relative decorum of the times.
