3 ms·

Libertarians (reactionaries) took over the GOP, kicking out the conservatives. Koch, who is an atheist, et al allied with evangelicals to accomplish this. Time

Libertarians (reactionaries) took over the GOP, kicking out the conservatives. Koch, who is an atheist, et al allied with evangelicals to accomplish this. Time will tell who will be left standing, the theocrats or the reactionaries. There are many exposés, books, articles, etc. Here are two of the more recent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Chains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Chains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money

jimmygrapes 4y ago
These concepts I am familiar with, but both of these sources suffer from the same problem: third parties presuming and ascribing intent. Sure they might be correct eventually, and as you say, only time will tell. But I ain't overly interested in the opinions of third party, hyperbolic sooth sayers with axes to grind. If someone is going to claim a fact one way or the other, let's be factual all around. Assumption and doubt-casting may sell books, but they don't really persuade me.
- specialist 4y ago
  > ...but they don't really persuade me. What measure of proof do you require? Democracy in Chains' primary source are a cache of documents from economist James Buchanan's think tank, architects of the reactionary movement's strategy. By their own words and actions, they intend to end democracy and protect the rich. Disagree with the author's analysis, fine. But the thesis is not circumstantial, inferred, or speculated. Whereas Dark Money is a standard whodunnit. Investigative journalism, following the money, ferret out the criminal conspiracy. If you have a different interpretation of the evidence, please share.
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  You need it spelled out for you? So if I tell you “I love you and would never hurt you” while beating the shit out of you, you’re going to think “hm, I can’t assume his intent, I bet he does love me!” Your argument is foolish.

jimmygrapes 4y ago

These concepts I am familiar with, but both of these sources suffer from the same problem: third parties presuming and ascribing intent. Sure they might be correct eventually, and as you say, only time will tell. But I ain't overly interested in the opinions of third party, hyperbolic sooth sayers with axes to grind. If someone is going to claim a fact one way or the other, let's be factual all around. Assumption and doubt-casting may sell books, but they don't really persuade me.

specialist 4y ago
> ...but they don't really persuade me. What measure of proof do you require? Democracy in Chains' primary source are a cache of documents from economist James Buchanan's think tank, architects of the reactionary movement's strategy. By their own words and actions, they intend to end democracy and protect the rich. Disagree with the author's analysis, fine. But the thesis is not circumstantial, inferred, or speculated. Whereas Dark Money is a standard whodunnit. Investigative journalism, following the money, ferret out the criminal conspiracy. If you have a different interpretation of the evidence, please share.
philosopher1234 4y ago
You need it spelled out for you? So if I tell you “I love you and would never hurt you” while beating the shit out of you, you’re going to think “hm, I can’t assume his intent, I bet he does love me!” Your argument is foolish.