A right-wing extremist who once cheered the prospect of executing gay people just won a seat in the Florida Legislature.
Republican Marshall Rawson won 68.15 percent of the vote in Florida House District 10, easily beating Democrat Merrillee Malwitz Jipson in deep red North Florida. His victory was widely expected in the heavily Republican district. But in August, Rawson won the GOP primary for the open seat in a surprise victory over Chase Brannan, the son of retiring Florida Rep. Chuck Brannan.
Some of his extremist rhetoric had been reported in local outlets like Clay News & Views, which in January spotlighted a 2023 post on Twitter, now X, in which Rawson shared a report on Uganda charging men with “aggravated homosexuality.” Responding to the prospect of the men facing the death penalty, Rawson wrote, “This is how you would run the pervs and miscreants out of Florida.”
Florida Politics reported on Rawson’s lengthy involvement with the League of the South, which has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center since 2000. He also criticized the celebration of Martin Luther King Jr. Day and posted that “taking old dead communist heroes of the past and dressing them up as Christian Conservatives isn’t conservatism, it’s defeatism.”
Seems there’s a new George Wallace in the south.
Agreed to certain extents but even the best were blinded by the standards of their time, which is fair enough… but ultimately, IMO, they effectively all founded the country on the foundational ideals of: “We got already got ours, let’s pull up the ladder”
Nope! It was taxation without representation. The ladder stuff did come in quickly, but the founding was based on the colonies not being able to get be heard on their grievances that arose because of Britain trying to economically recover from the French and Indian war.
The ladder thing came in from a combination of factors like the French Revolution combined with the fear as related to slavery.
Everything you mentioned relates to the US Constitution. The US Constitution wasn’t the founding document. That was the second document drafted. The first document was the Articles of Confederation. Nothing you mentioned were in those articles, nor were they an instigating cause to form our country
Oh right, the constitution has nothing to do with the rules and law of the country it’s definitely not the most important part of our legal system lol. My question to you is: so?! They clearly wanted to be rulers and not freedom lovers.
My text was in response to your erroneous affirmation that our founding was on your erroneous assertion of the concept of “We got already got ours, let’s pull up the ladder”. I replied what our founding documents actually were and the grievances that caused us to be founded. I then corrected you on your assertion of what the founding document actually was (declaration was caused by the grievances that I listed) + the Articles of Confederation.
The ladder pulling didn’t come in until later, as I asserted.
I appreciate you actually explaining yourself very much, thank you! I’m sorry that the effort probably gets wasted on most lol.
I will say that everything I mentioned, it was all shit from the same people who were involved w/ the articles of confederation.
Like, in my opinion, the difference between it coming a few years later from the same exact people versus at the direct founding is negligible at this point in time, a couple hundred years later.
Like I suppose my question is really just: what difference does it really make if they TRULY were honest in the AoC just for them to do an ideological u-turn very shortly after? Feels very POSIWID to me
Being technically correct is the best kind of correct!